Set for hearing for Tuesday, February 28, 2017, line 6. DEFENDANTS CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., ROBERT GLENNING, COLETTE GARDNER, JOHN LEWIN, KELLI O’TOOLE, JOSHUA HARTMAN’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT. Defendants Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Inc., Robert Glenning, Colette Gardner, John Lewin, Kelli O’Toole, and Joshua Hartman’s demurrer to all causes of action alleged against them in the complaint filed by plaintiffs Lourdes Zamudio and Pedro Garate is sustained without leave to amend as to all causes of action. No California authority states or suggests that an employer or an employee involved in the hiring, supervision or retention of another employee can be held liable for the criminal conduct of an employee committed against a person who was neither a customer of the employer or a person who had an existing business or other relationship with the employer. The holdings, language and reasoning of Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1133, Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal App. 4th 790, Federico v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1207, Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 1038, Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 1556, Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 828 make clear that the demurring defendants are not liable for the assault committed by Alexander Damhuis on Ms. Zamudio based on a negligent, hiring, retention or supervision theory. Stated differently, even if the demurring defendants knew or should have known that Mr. Damhuis had violent tendencies and he presented a risk to members of the public that he would commit violent acts, the demurring defendants owed no duty to members of the public (as distinct from a customer of CRF or a person who had an existing business or other relationship with CRF) based on a negligent, hiring, retention or supervision theory. “An employer is not charged with guaranteeing the safety of anyone his employee might incidentally meet while on the job against injuries inflicted independent of the performance of work-related functions.” (Federico, 59 Cal. App. 4th at 1215. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for the demurring defendants is required to prepare a proposed order that repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing or email it to prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.