Chu v. Naik CA1/5

Filed 5/26/15 Chu v. Naik CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A142837 v. VINAYAK NAIK et al., (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV508888) Defendants and Respondents.

Cindy K. Hung (Cindy) died tragically after a fall at her workplace on October 21, 2010.1 Her death was ruled a suicide by the coroner. Cindy’s parents, appellants Li Ching Chu and Robert Ching Liang Hung (Plaintiffs), are convinced that their daughter was murdered and the true cause of her death has been covered up by an ongoing conspiracy. Plaintiffs’ wrongful death action, filed in 2011, has yet to proceed past the pleading stage. At issue here are demurrers sustained by the trial court without leave to amend as to several individuals who were substituted for Doe defendants. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND As relevant here, Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint asserted claims against Tribal Technologies (Cindy’s employer), Joseph Vierra (Cindy’s supervisor), Victoria Dinovich, and multiple Doe defendants. The claims arise from Cindy’s death at her workplace in October 2010. Cindy’s body was found on the rooftop of a breezeway in the office building where she worked for Tribal Technologies. Her death was deemed a 1 We refer to decedent by her first name to avoid confusion. We intend no disrespect.

1

suicide. Plaintiffs allege that Tribal Technologies employees Vierra and Dinovich murdered Cindy with the assistance of the Doe defendants, and all defendants covered up the crime. Plaintiffs assert claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision and retention, obstruction of justice, wrongful death, and “vicarious liability.” Plaintiffs eventually identified several Doe defendants, including respondents Vinayak Naik, Debbie Pranckitas, Charlie Lin, Elisia Chestang, Steven Clark, Rosanna Fay, Amrose Birani, Fred Xi, Jette Speights, Jon Davis, Jonathan Hecht, Saimon Rai, Samantha Wong, Paul Swanson, Shari Lewin, Jason Taylor, Beorn Johnson, Jonathan Hansen, Travis Johnson, Alberto Moriondo, Harish Ravichandran, Isai Damier, Sal Orlando, and Caroline Hoffman (Respondents).2 Respondents successfully demurred and judgment was entered in their favor. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in sustaining Respondents’ demurrers without leave to amend. We review an order sustaining a demurrer de novo, exercising our independent judgment as to whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a cause of action on any available legal theory. (See Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1501.) In doing so, we assume the truth of all material factual allegations together with those matters subject to judicial notice. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) If the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, “we must decide whether there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.” (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) If we find that an