[ENTER NAME]
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE |
|
| [ENTER NAME], Plaintiff v. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN; [ENTER NAME]; and IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendants | Case No.: COMPLAINT |
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, [ENTER NAME], pro se, files this Complaint against the Defendants and alleges the following on information and belief:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT. 4
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION.. 5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552………………………………………………………………… 7
Coyle v. Historic MissionInn Corp. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627, 643 [234 Cal.Rptr.3d 330]…….. 8
Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1988)…………………………….. 9
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)……………………………………………………………………….. 9
Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995)……………………………………. 9
Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202………………………………………………………….. 7
Ruckman v. Wildwood Farms, LLC, F078655 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 2021)…………………………….. 7
Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 871, 765 P.2d 498 (1989)…………………. 10
Singleton v. Perry, 45 Cal.2d 489, 289 P.2d 794 (Cal. 1955……………………………………………….. 10
Statutes
California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10,…………………………………………………………….. 5
Constitutional Provisions
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
California Constitution, Article VI, section 10……………………………………………………………………. 5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. This case involves the incidence that took place on January 25, 2020 at the Defendant’s Hospital, where the second Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff. After the assault, the third Defendant charged the Plaintiff based on a Police report containing false allegations that the Plaintiff is the one who assaulted the Second Defendant. The case was later dismissed. Plaintiff now files this case to seek redress against the Defendants in that regard.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff [ENTER NAME] is a California resident of [ENTER ADDRESS].
3. Defendant HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN, of address NE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663, is a domestic non-profit organization registered and operating in California (hereinafter “First Defendant”).
4. Defendant [ENTER NAME], of address [ENTER ADDRESS] is/was an employee of the First Defendant. Upon information and belief, the said Defendant was employed as a Security Officer at the First Defendant’s facility (hereinafter “Second Defendant”)..
5. Defendant IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, of address [ENTER ADDRESS] is a Police Department for the City of Irvine in Orange County, California.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants pursuant to California Constitution, Article VI, section 10, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, in that each Defendant does substantial business in California; all of the Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the benefits of doing business in this state; and the Defendants’ violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in this state.
7. The claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred in Irvine City and Orange County. Venue for this matter properly lies within this County because the claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred, in whole or in part, in Orange County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
8. Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted at the First Defendant’s facility.
9. The incidence that gave rise to this action took place on January 25, 2020, when the Plaintiff went to visit the mother.
10. As Plaintiff was checking in at the ER at the First Defendant’s facility, the Second Defendant stole Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
11. The police officers arrived and took a police report of the incidence. Interestingly, the Second Defendant gave false information that Plaintiff was the one who punched his face. Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged and a case was filed against her.
12. During the pendency of the said case, the Third Defendant refused to give Plaintiff a copy of the Police Report. It was only when the case was dismissed when the Third Defendant gave the Plaintiff the Report.
13. The said case was dismissed on June 2020. After the dismissal of the case, the Plaintiff got the Report.
14. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, no one apart from the detective looked at the hospital camera footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020.
15. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm an distress pursuant to the malicious prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.
.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
(Against the First Defendant)
16. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
17. Vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondent superior” makes the employers liable for torts committed by their employees. For the employer to be liable, the employee must be acting within the ordinary scope of his or her employment. Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202; Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552. The vicarious liability doctrine extends to Independent Contractors. See Ruckman v. Wildwood Farms, LLC, F078655 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 2021).
18. In the instant action, the First Defendant was the employer of the Second Defendant. Accordingly, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the First Defendant is liable for the actions and/or inactions of the Second Defendant herein.
19. First, the Second Defendant assaulted Plaintiff by pushing her until she fell, and stealing her phone. Further, the Second Defendant gave false information to the Police, which led to the case against Plaintiff, which was dismissed.
20. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress consequential and incidental to the Second Defendant’s actions and/or inactions as alleged herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Against Second and Third Defendants)
21. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 20 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
22. ‘The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are “(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” See Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, 911 P.2d496]. “Breach is the failure to meet the standard of care.” Coyle v. Historic MissionInn Corp. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627, 643 [234 Cal.Rptr.3d 330]. “The element of causation requires there to be a connection between the defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injury.” Coyle, 24 Cal.App.5th at p.645.
23. A legal duty of care existed between Plaintiff and the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant had a duty to avoid committing any act that would harm Plaintiff. The said Defendant breached the duty when he pushed Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell, stole Plaintiff’s phone, and gave false report against Plaintiff.
24. A legal duty of care existed between Third Defendant and the Plaintiff. The police officers had a duty to protect the public and to enforce the law. The police officers and/or the detective breached the said duty when they admitted the Second Defendant’s false allegations, and when they failed to consider the video recording footage that recorded the incidences of January 25, 2020.
25. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress consequential and incidental to the Second Defendant’s actions and/or inactions as alleged herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
(In violation of 42 USC 1983)
(Against the Third Defendant)
26. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
27. State courts may also properly hear Section 1983 cases pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause mandates that states must provide forums for federal claims and the vindication of federal rights. This point was solidified in the Supreme Court decision of Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1988).
28. The plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); see Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (“A prima facie case under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) a person deprived him of a federal right; 25 and (2) the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.”).
29. In the instant action, the Third Defendant’s officers were carrying out their statutory duties when they investigated and prosecuted Plaintiff for the false allegations alleged against him by the Second Defendant. The said Defendant violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when they proceeded to charge and prosecute the case against Plaintiff based on unverified allegations. Notably, the video footage from the hospital was not given due consideration to ascertain the veracity of the Second Defendant’s allegations.
30. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress consequential and incidental to the Second Defendant’s actions and/or inactions as alleged herein.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(Against Second and Third Defendants)
31. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
32. A malicious prosecution claim recognizes and protects the right of an individual to be free from unjustifiable litigation or criminal prosecution. Vanzant v. Daimler/Chrysler Corp. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1283.
33. “In California, the elements of malicious prosecution are (a) the initiation of criminal prosecution, (b) malicious motivation, and (c) lack of probable cause.” Singleton v. Perry, 45 Cal.2d 489, 289 P.2d 794 (Cal. 1955); Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 871, 765 P.2d 498 (1989) (in order to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution of either a criminal or civil proceeding, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the prior action (1) was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant and was pursued to a legal termination in plaintiff’s favor; (2) was brought without probable cause; and (3) was initiated with malice).
34. In the instant action, the Second and Third Defendants instituted a charge against the Plaintiff, which was based on false allegations. Notably, the Second Defendant lied that the Plaintiff punched him in the face. Instead, there was a video recording from the hospital, which would provide the truth regarding what really happened. The Third Defendant went ahead to prosecute the case without considering the falsity in the Police Report.
35. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress consequential and incidental to the Second Defendant’s actions and/or inactions as alleged herein.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against Second and Third Defendants)
36. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
37. “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress;(2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.’ ” Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035,1050-1051 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963])
38. In the instant action, the Second Defendant intentionally gave false information to the police, that the Plaintiff punched him in the face. Further, the officers of the Third Defendant proceeded to charge the Plaintiff and prosecute a case against him based on the false information. The Third Defendant intentionally disregarded the video recording that showed what happened on the January 25, 2020 incidence.
39. The Defendants did the said actions and/or inactions without considering the effects such actions and/or inactions would have on Plaintiff.
40. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress consequential and incidental to the Second Defendant’s actions and/or inactions as alleged herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant:
- An order and judgment for Compensatory Damages against the Defendants,
- Any such other relief, as this Court deems just and equitable.
DECLARATION
Executed this _____ day of January 2022 at ______, California, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant all requested relief in Plaintiff’s prayers above.
DATED:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESSES]
DATED:
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )