MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Of Issues
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Friday, September 19, 2025, Line 10. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] DEFENDANT FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES.
Defendant Five Keys Schools and Programs' motion for summary adjudication of issues is denied.
A party may move for summary adjudication in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the cause of action has no merit. (Code Civ. Proc., section 437c, subd. (a)(1).) The motion for summary adjudication shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact. (Id., section 437c, subd. (c).)
The moving party must make an initial showing, based upon affirmative evidence, that summary adjudication must be granted. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the movant meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists. The court liberally construes the evidence in support of the party opposing summary adjudication and resolves doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039.) The moving party bears the burden of persuasion "from the commencement to conclusion" to show "that there is no triable issue of material fact and that [it] is entitled to [summary adjudication] as a matter of law." (Ibid.)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The elements of a claim for IIED are 1) extreme or outrageous conduct by defendant, 2) intentional or reckless causing of emotional distress, 3) severe emotional distress, and 4) causation. (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259.)
Here, Five Keys argues that Ho's supervisor Gary Miranda did not engage in extreme or outrageous behavior toward Ho. However, Five Keys presented no evidence showing conclusively that Miranda's behavior did not rise to the level of extreme or outrageous, even though plaintiffs allege that Miranda touched Ho inappropriately and made repeated sexual overtures at her. Mere distinction from other "worse" IIED cases is insufficient for Five Keys to meet its burden for summary adjudication, and the outrageousness of Miranda's conduct is an issue of material fact to be determined at trial.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Five Keys also argues that Ho has no evidence of Miranda's intent to cause emotional distress. However, the burden falls on Five Keys to demonstrate that Miranda lacked such intent, and it again failed to meet that burden. Therefore, there remain triable issues of material fact regarding Ho's IIED claim.
Punitive Damages
Under California Civil Code, section 3294, for punitive damages the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with "oppression, fraud, or malice" and that those acts were performed or ratified by an "officer, director, or managing agent."
Here, Five Keys argues that it cannot be liable because none of the individuals involved with responding to Ho's complaint or supervising Miranda was an officer, director, or managing agent. But Five Keys points to no evidence establishing that fact, or factually devoid discovery responses from Ho showing that she cannot establish that those individuals in fact were officers, directors, or managing agents. The court concludes that Five Keys has not carried its burden of production as the moving party on summary adjudication on this issue. [End of
part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |