Surita v. Target Corporation CA3

Filed 12/2/24 Surita v. Target Corporation CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

ANNA SURITA, C099855

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0048156)

v.

TARGET CORPORATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Anna Surita appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained Target Corporation’s demurrer to her second amended complaint without leave to amend. On appeal, Surita argues the court erred by determining that her allegations of tortious conduct are privileged. Surita has failed to demonstrate any error. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

1

I. BACKGROUND In March 2022, Surita filed her original complaint against Target alleging causes of action for general negligence and intentional tort. The complaint alleged Surita was “assaulted, battered, wrongfully detained, arrested, and imprisoned in an unlawful, unjustified, reckless, and negligent manner while an invited guest shopping in the Defendants’ retail establishment after Defendants wrongfully accused Plaintiff of shoplifting and notified law enforcement.” Target demurred to the complaint. While Target’s motion was pending, Surita filed a first amended complaint without leave of court alleging the same causes of action. The amended complaint added factual allegations. It alleged Surita was a customer at a Target store when Target falsely accused her of stealing products and contacted law enforcement to inform them of this accusation and direct them to arrest her: “As a result of Defendants’ false statements, law enforcement threatened Plaintiff in a manner causing Plaintiff to sustain fear (assault), touched Plaintiff in an unwanted manner causing pain by twisting Plaintiff’s arms and shoulders, spreading Plaintiff’s legs, and touching Plaintiff throughout her body (battery), forced Plaintiff to go to a location which Plaintiff did not want to go including leaving the store, a police car, a police station, and a jail without any legal justification (wrongfully detained), placed Plaintiff under arrest by placing Plaintiff in handcuffs, forcing Plaintiff into a police car, and forcing Plaintiff to be transported against her will and wishes to a police station and jail (arrest), and forced Plaintiff to remain in a cage which prevented Plaintiff from leaving without first paying an extortion fee to be released from the cage (imprisoned).” (Italics added.) The trial court sustained Target’s demurrer to the original complaint with leave to amend on the basis that it failed to allege facts in support of any of the elements of each claim, and deemed the first amended complaint to be filed in response to its ruling. Target responded to the first amended complaint with another demurrer. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the basis that reports made to law enforcement of