Doe v. Regents of University of California CA4/3

Filed 7/26/16 Doe v. Regents of University of California CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G051379

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00701262)

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF OPINION CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Peter J. Wilson, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Thomas Y. Barclay, Thomas Y Barclay; Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Coleman and Jeffrey A. Coleman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Nye, Peaboy, Stirling, Hale & Miller, Jonathan D. Miller and Holly C. Blackwell for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff Jane Doe appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant the Regents of the University of California to plaintiff’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. She contends the court erred by relying on John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438 (John R.) in concluding defendant bore no respondeat superior liability for the sexual misconduct of its employee. The court did not err. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the allegations of the second amended complaint, plaintiff was an undergraduate student attending the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) when she was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Beckstrand, a graduate student and teaching assistant employed by UCSB. Plaintiff knew Beckstrand from a class she had previously taken in which he was the teaching assistant. On the date of the assault, plaintiff encountered Beckstrand on campus and requested his assistance in writing a paper for one of her current classes. He agreed and they arranged to meet, that night, at an on-campus location. They met at 9:00 p.m., and thereafter went back to Beckstrand’s on-campus office to continue their meeting. Once there, Beckstrand sexually assaulted plaintiff while telling her that he had a knife and striking her in the face to force compliance. Plaintiff sued defendant for sexual battery, sexual assault, premises liability, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress. After several demurrers and amendments, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, limiting her claims against defendant to vicarious liability for Beckstrand’s sexual battery and sexual assault. Defendant demurred to that complaint based on a “long line of precedent establishing that sexual misconduct falls outside the course and scope of employment and should not be imputed to the employer.” The court sustained the demurrer “without leave to amend, because an employee like co-defendant Beckstrand is not acting within the