Kaabinejadian v. Rabobank CA4/2 (2014) · DecisionDepot
Kaabinejadian v. Rabobank CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 2014 No. E056481Unpublished
Filed 1/14/14 Kaabinejadian v. Rabobank CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
MASSOUD KAABINEJADIAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E056481
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1110343)
RABOBANK, N.A. et al., OPINION
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Joseph R. Brisco,
Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Massoud Kaabinejadian, in pro. per.; and Jeanne M. Collachia for Plaintiff and
Appellant. [Retained.]
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Patricia K. Gillette, Kristen M. Jacoby, Lena P.
Ryan, and Craig Wickersham for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff Massoud Kaabinejadian worked for defendant Rabobank, N.A.
(Rabobank) until he was terminated by his supervisor, defendant Cheryl Walker. He
filed a workers’ compensation proceeding against Rabobank, seeking compensation for
emotional distress, but it was ultimately unsuccessful.
1
In this action, Kaabinejadian asserts causes of action for national origin
discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of contract, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the
first three causes of action, based on the statute of limitations; it rejected Kaabinejadian’s
argument that the statute was equitably tolled during the workers’ compensation
proceeding. The trial court also sustained a demurrer to the fourth cause of action,
apparently ruling that the workers’ compensation proceeding was res judicata as to his
emotional distress claim.
Kaabinejadian appeals. With respect to the first three causes of action, we will
reverse; we will hold that Kaabinejadian adequately alleged equitable tolling. With
respect to the fourth cause of action, however, we will affirm — not based on res judicata
(or collateral estoppel), but rather because Kaabinejadian failed to allege any sufficiently
extreme or outrageous conduct by defendants.
2
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Allegations of the Operative Complaint.
Kaabinejadian filed this action on December 1, 2011.
The operative complaint was filed on March 1, 2012. It asserted four causes of
action:
1. Employment discrimination based on national origin, against Rabobank;
2. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy, against Rabobank;
3. Breach of contract, against Rabobank;
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, against both Rabobank and Walker.
These causes of action were based on the following allegations.
In December 2005, Rabobank hired Kaabinejadian as a Senior Vice-President –
Credit Administrator.
In April 2006, several Rabobank employees started making false accusations
about Kaabinejadian to Walker and others; these employees were motivated by national
origin discrimination, and they were hoping to get him fired.
In May 2006, Kaabinejadian learned about these false accusations. He told
Walker that they were untrue, that they were causing him “significant worry, anxiety and
emotional upset,” and that they were creating a “hostile work environment.” Walker
promised to investigate and to stop these “acts of harassment.”
3
In June 2006, however, Walker told Kaabinejadian she was not going to
investigate or take any action. Kaabinejadian was “shocked and greatly upset and
disturbed . . . .” He told Walker that he was going to file claims for discrimination and
emotional distress. Walker replied, “in a threatening and menacing voice and demeanor,”
that he should “‘hold up the mirror and look at [him]self,’” which he reasonably
understood to be an expression of prejudice based on his national origin.
In July 2006, Walker had Kaabinejadian make a six-hour, 350-mile trip from
Ontario to El Centro, telling him falsely that he had to interview applicants for
employment there. Once he got there, Walker admitted that she had lied and fired him.
The termination was in retaliation for his announced intent to file discrimination and
emotional distress claims. The termination made Kaabinejadian “severely emotionally
upset and distressed . . . .”
In September 2006, Kaabinejadian filed an emotional distress claim with the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board). He later added a claim for
discrimination based on intent to file a workers’ compensation claim. (See Lab. Code,
§ 132a.)
In March 2007, Kaabinejadian filed a national origin discrimination claim against
Rabobank with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
(Department). In May 2008, the Department issued him a right-to-sue letter.
4
In August 2011, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Kaabinejadian’s
workers’ compensation claim. She found that it was barred by Labor Code section
3208.3, subdivision (d). This subdivision provides (as relevant here): “[N]o
compensation shall be paid . . . for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an
employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six
months. . . . This subdivision shall not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a
sudden and extraordinary employment condition.” Kaabinejadian conceded that he
worked for Rabobank for less than six months, and the ALJ found that the claimed injury
was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition: “[E]ach event
described by Mr. Kaabinejadian as having contributed to his claim of injury . . . fit well
within the parameters of normal, regular or routine exchanges between employees and
the employer . . . .”
Finally, the ALJ found that Kaabinejadian “ha[d] not sustained his burden of
proof” on his claim of discrimination based on intent to file a workers’ compensation
claim because he did not report any claim of injury until after he had already been
terminated.
The denial of Kaabinejadian’s workers’ compensation claim became final in
December 2011.
5
B. The Demurrer.
In April 2012, defendants filed a demurrer to the operative complaint.1
Kaabinejadian filed an opposition.
Later in April 2012, the trial court heard argument on the demurrer. It sustained
the demurrer on all causes of action without leave to amend. With regard to the first,
second, and third causes of action, it explained that the equitable tolling doctrine did not
apply because the Board did not have jurisdiction of Kaabinejadian’s claims. With
regard to the fourth cause of action, it explained that the claim had been “litigated to its
finality” before the Board. Accordingly, it entered judgment against Kaabinejadian and
in favor of Rabobank.
1 The demurrer itself, Kaabinejadian’s opposition, and defendants’ reply, if any, have not been included in the appellate record.
Initially, we considered dismissing Kaabinejadian’s appeal on the ground that he had failed to supply an adequate record. (See Webman v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 592, 595.) However, we are required to “presume that the record in an appeal includes all matters material to deciding the issues raised.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.) Defendants have not asked to augment the record and have not argued that the omitted materials are “necessary for proper consideration of the issues . . . .” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b)(1)(B).) We can consider grounds for a general demurrer even if they were not raised below. (Buford v. State of California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811, 826.) Accordingly, the presumption that the record is adequate stands unrebutted.
6
II
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A demurrer should be sustained when “[t]he pleading does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
“We independently review the superior court’s ruling on a demurrer and determine
de novo whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or
discloses a complete defense. [Citations.] We assume the truth of the properly pleaded
factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and
matters of which judicial notice has been taken. [Citations.] We liberally construe the
pleading with a view to substantial justice between the parties. [Citations.]” (Regents of
University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 549, 558.)
III
FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION: EQUITABLE TOLLING
With respect to the first three causes of action, Kaabinejadian contends that he
adequately pleaded equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
The limitations periods for these causes of action were:
1. Employment discrimination: One year after issuance of a right-to-sue notice.
(Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b).)
2. Wrongful termination: Two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; see Lamke v.
Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410 is closely analogous to this case. There, the
plaintiff was injured at the defendant’s business. The plaintiff claimed, in good faith, that
he was the defendant’s employee. Hence, he filed a workers’ compensation claim. The
Board, however, found that he was not an employee and denied his claim. The plaintiff
then filed a personal injury action after the applicable limitations period had run. (Id. at
p. 413.)
The Supreme Court held that equitable tolling applied. (Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12
Cal.3d at pp. 414-420.) It acknowledged “that plaintiff Elkins was not required to seek
workmen’s compensation as a prerequisite to his filing a civil action but rather could
immediately have initiated a tort action or have pursued his compensation and tort
remedies simultaneously. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 414.) It explained, however, that
“duplicative proceedings are surely inefficient, awkward and laborious. If, in order to
avert loss of his rights, an injured party is forced to initiate proceedings with both the
compensation board and a superior court, he brings onerous procedural burdens upon
himself, his employer, and the already overtaxed judicial system. Such additional
resource investments go for nought whenever the compensation board concludes that the
injured party is entitled to relief.” (Id. at p. 420.)
10
The court also stated: “Nor can we overlook the inequity that a duplicative filing
requirement might work upon an injured party. The workmen’s compensation system,
after all, was intended to afford a simple and nontechnical path to relief. [Citations.] The
system affords means by which an employee may learn about his rights informally and
without an attorney. [Citation.] Unaware, under such circumstances, that he may be
entitled to a remedy only in superior court or overwhelmed by seemingly inscrutable
distinctions between ‘employees’ and ‘independent contractors’ or injuries arising within
and without ‘the course of employment,’ an injured party can easily lose his tort remedy
while devoting his attention to pursuing a compensation claim. [Citation.] The tolling of
the statute during the pendency of the compensation claim does much to eliminate this
trap . . . .” (Id. at p. 419, fn. omitted.)
More generally, it has been said that “the question of tolling is not to be
determined retrospectively depending upon the success or failure of the plaintiff in
pursuing the alternative remedy. [Citation.] . . . The injured person should not be
required ‘to predict at his peril the precise legal theory (remedy) supporting ultimate
recovery. He should not be placed in the dilemma of awaiting “jurisdictional” decisions
. . . (of one tribunal) . . . while the clock of limitations ticks in his ear.’ [Citation.]”
(Myers v. County of Orange (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 626, 636.)
Here, the trial court ruled that equitable tolling did not apply because the Board
did not have jurisdiction of Kaabinejadian’s civil claims. In this appeal, defendants seem
to be raising the same argument; for some reason, they do not phrase it in terms of
11
“jurisdiction,” but they do argue that “the legal doctrine of equitable tolling only applies
if a plaintiff chooses from two available remedies. In this case, there was only one forum
for each claim asserted in the [operative complaint] so [Kaabinejadian] could not possibly
choose one remedy over another.” In Elkins itself, however, the Board did not have
jurisdiction of the plaintiff’s claims — other than “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction”
(Scott v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 76, 83) — because it found that he was
not the defendant’s employee. Nevertheless, equitable tolling applied.
Defendants, however, also raise a somewhat different argument. They assert that,
under Elkins, for equitable tolling to apply, Kaabinejadian’s civil claims must be the
mirror image of his workers’ compensation claim, with the sole difference being whether
a court or the Board has jurisdiction. Because his civil claims arise out of “different
wrongs” than his workers’ compensation claim, defendants assert, he is not entitled to
equitable tolling.2 (Underlining omitted.)
The argument that the first claim must be identical to the second claim — or, at
least, identical aside from the jurisdictional facts — was rejected in Collier v. City of
Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917. The Collier court said: “[T]he two ‘causes of
action’ need not be absolutely identical. The critical question is whether notice of the
first claim affords the defendant an opportunity to identify the sources of evidence which
2 Defendants do not challenge the applicability of equitable tolling to the fourth cause of action, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because damages for emotional distress are recoverable in a workers’ compensation proceeding.
12
might be needed to defend against the second claim. [The defendant]’s counsel at oral
argument urged the two claims also must represent mutually inconsistent remedies for the
same harm as did the workers’ compensation and tort actions in Elkins. . . . ‘ . . . No such
limitation appears in the language of the precedent cases. . . .’ . . . So long as the two
claims are based on essentially the same set of facts timely investigation of the first claim
should put the defendant in position to appropriately defend the second. . . . In terms of
the underlying policies of the statutes of limitation, it is irrelevant whether those two
claims are alternative or parallel, consistent or inconsistent, compatible or incompatible.”
(Collier, supra, at pp. 925-926, fns. omitted.)
In support of their “different wrongs” argument, defendants cite Aerojet General
Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 950. There, an injured worker alleged
that his employer had fraudulently concealed the hazards of a chemical that he was
exposed to in the workplace. (Id. at p. 952.) He had previously filed a successful
workers’ compensation claim for his injuries. (Id. at p. 953 & fn. 1.) After a full trial on
the statute of limitations issue, the trial court ruled that equitable tolling applied. (Id. at
pp. 952-953.)
The appellate court reversed, holding that the workers’ compensation claim did
not equitably toll the fraudulent concealment claim. It explained: “[P]laintiff[’s]
worker’s compensation claim and [his] suit for fraudulent concealment are not alternative
remedies for the same harm; they are different remedies for different harms. The filing of
the former did not alert defendants to the nature or the imminence of the latter. That this
13
is so cannot be gainsaid when it is recognized that evidence an employer might gather
during the pendency of a worker’s compensation action to refute a civil claim for the
same injury will serve him not at all in a suit for fraudulent concealment, where liability
for the injury itself is not at issue.” (Aerojet General Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 177
Cal.App.3d at p. 956, fn. omitted.)
As the discussion in Aerojet reveals, that case did not impose a requirement of
“similar harms” or “similar remedies” separate and apart from the preexisting three-part
requirement of timely notice, lack of prejudice, and reasonable and good faith conduct.
Quite the contrary, it discussed the similarities and differences between the two
successive claims in the context of the second requirement, lack of prejudice, which turns
on whether the filing of the first claim put the defendant on notice of the need to defend
against the second claim. Because — on the particular facts of Aerojet — the two claims
involved different wrongs, the first claim failed to afford the requisite notice of the
second claim.
Cervantes v. City of San Diego (9th Cir. 1993) 5 F.3d 1273 adopted precisely this
reading of California law. There, the plaintiff had been terminated from his job with a
city. He filed an administrative proceeding for reinstatement. When that was
unsuccessful, he filed an action in federal court under 42 United States Code section
1983, alleging that the city had conspired with others to frame him for certain crimes,
which resulted in his termination. (Id. at p. 1274.) The trial court ruled that equitable
14
tolling did not apply, as a matter of law, because the plaintiff’s administrative proceeding
was not “substantially similar” to his civil action. (Id. at p. 1275.)
The appellate court rejected this “substantial similarity’ test: “‘[S]imilarity’ of the
prior and current claims is a matter best determined following, and on the basis of, the
application of the three-part equitable tolling test established by California law.
Although we have previously stated that ‘equitable tolling is not applicable when a
plaintiff has pursued a remedy as to only one of several distinct wrongs,’ [citation], we
have never suggested that in reaching that determination the district court may bypass the
traditional method for determining California equitable tolling issues. It is the
application of California’s equitable tolling test itself that yields the ‘final’ conclusion as
to whether two claims are ‘similar’ enough that the pendency of the one should toll the
limitations period for the other. Although ‘similarity’ often serves as a shorthand
designation of the outcome of the test, it is neither separable from nor a ‘threshold’ to the
requisite three-part inquiry. Application of the three-part test is mandatory.
“ . . . ‘[S]imilarity’ of the prior and subsequent claims is a significant
consideration when applying the second test factor, prejudice to the defendant. However,
unlike a ‘threshold’ inquiry determinable as a matter of law, the focus of this factor is
whether the facts of the two claims are ‘at least so similar that the defendant’s
investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.’
[Citation.] ‘The critical question is whether notice of the first claim affords the defendant
an opportunity to identify the sources of evidence which might be needed to defend
15
against the second claim.’ [Citation.] This inquiry — the appropriate ‘similarity’ inquiry
under California law — is far more fact-specific and evidence-bound than the ‘threshold’
determination apparently envisioned by the district court. Under California’s equitable
tolling test, ‘similarity’ is less a legal conclusion and more a factual exploration of the
contentions and evidence relevant to each claim. As such, ‘similarity’ is not easily
resolved as a matter of law, without receiving evidence.” (Cervantes v. City of San
Diego, supra, 5 F.3d at pp. 1275-1276, fns. omitted.)
Here, for purposes of the prejudice prong of the three-part test, Kaabinejadian
alleged: “Defendant Rabobank[,] through its Workers’ Compensation Proceedings legal
counsel of record, . . . conducted a full and thorough investigation of Plaintiff and the
underlying facts surrounding his employment with Defendant Rabobank beginning in
2006 and extending into 2010, including procurement of Plaintiff’s employment, medical
and psychological records, various workplace documents and . . . workplace witness and
co-worker statements with the intent to defend Defendant Rabobank against not only the
Workers’ Compensation Proceeding but also the civil action likely to be asserted by
Plaintiff arising out of the employment relationship.” This was a sufficient allegation of
lack of prejudice to Rabobank.
Moreover, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that Kaabinejadian’s claims in the
workers’ compensation proceeding were so different from his claims in this proceeding
that Rabobank must have been prejudiced. The workers’ compensation proceeding was
16
“based on essentially the same set of facts” as the present action. (See Collier v. City of
Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at p. 925.)
In the workers’ compensation proceeding, Kaabinejadian claimed that he had
suffered work-related emotional distress between April 2006 and his termination in July
2006. He alleged that he had complained “about the hostile work environment and being
subjected to ongoing discrimination.” He also alleged that his termination was
“retaliat[ory]” and that he was terminated “in the most inhumane, degrading, cruel and
hurtful way possible.”
These allegations reasonably would have caused Rabobank to investigate
Kaabinejadian’s work-related circumstances between April and July 2006. In particular,
it would have investigated his complaints to Walker, which in turn would have revealed
other employees’ complaints about him. Rabobank would also have investigated the
circumstances of his termination. All of this would have prepared Rabobank to defend
against Kaabinejadian’s allegations in this action, which arise out of the same facts, even
though he is asserting different legal theories.3 If, as a factual matter, Rabobank did not
3 Defendants point out that the ALJ’s opinion in the workers’ compensation proceeding “does not mention national origin discrimination, wrongful termination, or breach of contract. Not once.” In his pleadings, however, Kaabinejadian did assert that he had been “wrongfully terminated.” The ALJ bifurcated the proceeding; she limited the first phase to various threshold issues, which ultimately proved dispositive. Thus, she did not necessarily reach or even mention all of Kaabinejadian’s claims. More to the point, defendants are arguing a purely factual issue that we cannot resolve in the context of a demurrer.
17
have an opportunity to investigate these matters, it can present evidence of that later. At
the present pleading stage, however, Kaabinejadian has adequately alleged the lack of
prejudice prong of equitable tolling as to Rabobank.
Defendants do not dispute the other two prongs of the three-part test. In other
words, they do not claim that Kaabinejadian failed to allege that he filed the workers’
compensation proceeding in a timely manner or that he acted reasonably and in good
faith. We therefore conclude that Kaabinejadian has adequately alleged equitable tolling
as to the first three causes of action.
IV
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
The trial court ruled that the judgment on Kaabinejadian’s workers’ compensation
claim barred his fourth cause of action, for intentional infliction of emotional distress,
apparently as a matter of res judicata (but possibly as a matter of collateral estoppel).
Kaabinejadian contends that this ruling was erroneous. Defendants respond that
both proceedings involved the issue of workers’ compensation exclusivity, and that the
ALJ’s determination on this issue is dispositive.
Separately and alternatively, however, defendants also argue that the trial court
could have sustained the demurrer to the fourth cause of action on other grounds,
including failure to allege sufficiently extreme and outrageous conduct. “‘“A judgment
of dismissal after a demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend will be affirmed
if proper on any grounds stated in the demurrer, whether or not the court acted on that
“But ‘[l]iability for intentional infliction of emotional distress “‘does not extend to
mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.’
[Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590,
1610.) A claim for unlawful discrimination, even if properly pleaded, does not
necessarily establish a claim for a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. (Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 80; see also
Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1123-1130.)
Here, defendants’ assertedly extreme and outrageous conduct consisted of: (1)
Walker telling Kaabinejadian that she was not going to investigate the false accusations
19
that other employees were making about him; (2) Walker saying that Kaabinejadian
should “‘hold up the mirror and look at [him]self’”; and (3) Walker instructing
Kaabinejadian, on false pretenses, to make a six-hour, 350-mile trip from Ontario to El
Centro, and then terminating him. This falls far short of conduct held insufficient in
other cases. (E.g., Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531,
534, 536-537 [employer allegedly deprived employee of union stewardship, transferred
him from one job to another, passed him over for promotion twice, assigned him to tasks
not appropriate to his labor grade, and terminated him].)
Kaabinejadian relies on Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493.
There, however, the plaintiff’s supervisor “allegedly shouted at plaintiff in a rude, violent
and insolent manner as follows: ‘You goddam “niggers” are not going to tell me about
the rules. I don't want any “niggers” working for me. I am getting rid of all the
“niggers”; go pick up and deliver that 8-ton roller to the other job site and get your pay
check; you’re fired.’” (Id. at pp. 496-497.) When the plaintiff reported this to the
secretary of the corporation, the secretary “ratified and confirmed” the supervisor’s acts.
(Id. at p. 497.) Walker’s statement that Kaabinejadian should “‘hold up the mirror and
look at [him]self’” does not rise to the level of these blatant racial epithets. Moreover,
Kaabinejadian does not allege that there was anything particularly distressing about the
manner in which Walker terminated him, except that she made him travel six hours and
350 miles to El Centro. For all his complaints about the summer heat and the remoteness
of the location, this is, frankly, just a minor inconvenience.
20
Kaabinejadian also argues that the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer
while defendants were resisting compliance with his discovery requests. He cites no
authority supporting the proposition that the trial court was obliged to await the outcome
of discovery before ruling on the demurrer. He does cite Budget Finance Plan v.
Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 794, but that case merely held that the plaintiff was
still entitled to take discovery after a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. (Id. at
pp. 797-798.) That is not the procedural posture here.
In any event, Kaabinejadian could not possibly have been prejudiced by the
unavailability of discovery. With respect to the first, second, and third causes of action,
we are reversing the judgment and allowing the action to proceed. With respect to the
fourth cause of action, if any of defendants’ conduct caused Kaabinejadian extreme and
severe emotional distress, presumably he already knew, even without discovery, what
that conduct was.
We therefore conclude that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the
fourth cause of action.
V
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The order sustaining the demurrer is reversed with
respect to the first, second, and third causes of action and affirmed with respect to the
fourth cause of action. The matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent
with this opinion.
21
Kaabinejadian is awarded costs on appeal against defendants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI J.
WE CONCUR
RAMIREZ P. J.
HOLLENHORST J.
22
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged equitable tolling for his first three causes of action, but affirmed the dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the complaint failed to allege sufficiently extreme or outrageous conduct.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer based on the statute of limitations by rejecting the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on res judicata or failure to state a claim.
Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“With respect to the first three causes of action, we will reverse; we will hold that Kaabinejadian adequately alleged equitable tolling.”
“With respect to the fourth cause of action, however, we will affirm — not based on res judicata (or collateral estoppel), but rather because Kaabinejadian failed to allege any sufficiently extreme or outrageous conduct by defendants.”