Set for hearing for Tuesday, February 28, 2017, line 6. DEFENDANT IRMA DAMHUIS’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT. Defendant Irma Damhuis’ demurrer to all non-dismissed causes of action alleged against her 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 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 Ms. Damhuis not liable for the assault committed by her son Alexander Damhuis on Ms. Zamudio based on a negligent, hiring, retention or supervision theory. Stated differently, even if Ms. Damhuis 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, Ms. Damhuis 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 contestdept302tr@sftc.org 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 Ms. Damhuis 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 contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
