Chu v. Glenborough 300 ECR CA1/5

Filed 4/9/14 Chu v. Glenborough 300 ECR CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LI CHING CHU et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A139167 v. GLENBOROUGH 400 ECR, LLC, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV508888) Defendant and Respondent.

The daughter of Li Ching Chu and Robert Ching Liang Hung (Plaintiffs) died after a fall from an upper floor of the office building where she worked. The coroner ruled the death a suicide, but Plaintiffs believe their daughter was murdered by coworkers. Plaintiffs also alleged that dangerous conditions in the office building contributed to her death, and that the building owner suppressed evidence of the murder. The trial court sustained demurrers to the causes of action against the building owner and Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this action individually and as successors in interest to their deceased daughter, Cindy K. Hung (Hung). In their first amended complaint they alleged that, from January 2010 until her death, Hung worked for Tribal Technologies (Tribal), a software development company located in a building at 400 South El Camino Real, San Mateo (the Building). At approximately 4:45 p.m. on October 21, 2010, Hung’s body was found on the rooftop of a Building breezeway. Although the deputy coroner deemed the death a suicide, Plaintiffs alleged that Hung was murdered by Tribal employees who

1

beat Hung unconscious, dumped her body in the breezeway, and covered up their role in the crime by giving false information to the coroner’s office and police investigators. They sued Tribal and 50 Doe Tribal employees for, inter alia, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Respondent Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC (Glenborough) owned and managed the Building. Plaintiffs sued Glenborough for premises liability based on allegations that it allowed the breezeway area to become an area attractive to criminal activity, failed to warn Building invitees of this danger, and failed to use its surveillance capability to observe the assault of Hung and call for assistance before she died. In addition to premises liability, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action against Glenborough for wrongful death and a survival action. Plaintiffs made similar allegations in their original complaint, and Glenborough demurred on the ground Plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing the criminal attack on Hung was foreseeable to Glenborough. Plaintiffs filed no written opposition, and the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiffs then filed the first amended complaint summarized above, and Glenborough demurred on the same ground. Plaintiffs again failed to file an opposition to the demurrer. Moreover, at the hearing on the demurrer, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded “that the building owner does not have the duty to warn . . . and the harm is not foreseeable.” Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, argued she had new evidence that Glenborough conspired with Tribal to cover up the murder of Hung. She said, “They have video tapes. They have security personnel who know what—,” at which point she was interrupted. The court sustained Glenborough’s demurrer without leave to amend, but also granted Plaintiffs leave to assert an obstruction of justice claim against Glenborough in a further amended complaint. Ultimately, in a verified third amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged Glenborough’s security guards observed the attack on Hung, failed to summon assistance, falsely claimed to investigators that they knew nothing about what had happened to Hung, and intentionally shielded the perpetrators from justice. They further alleged that Glenborough possessed surveillance videotapes of the attack on Hung, but