SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

BORIS ISSAEI,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

CAREY JASON PHILLIP HART, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC528682

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #20
April 3, 2014

Defendants, Carey Jason Phillip Hart and Alecia Beth Moore’s Demurrer to the Complaint is Overruled. Defendants are ordered to file an answer to the complaint within ten days.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Boris Issaei filed this action against Defendants, Carey Jason Phillip Hart, Alecia Beth Moore, and Nader Heydari for assault and battery, intentional destruction of personal property, and IIED. Plaintiff alleges he is a photographer who was lawfully photographing Hart and Pink (a married celebrity couple) when Heydari attacked him.

2. Demurrer
Defendants, Hart and Moore demur to each cause of action in the complaint.

a. Initial Note
Opposition to the demurrer was due on or before 3/20/14. Plaintiff filed and served his opposition (by overnight mail) on 3/21/14, one day late. This is likely due to the Cesar Chavez holiday on 3/31/14. Compounding the matter, it appears there was an error in the delivery of the opposition papers, such that Defendants did not receive the papers until late on 3/25/14. Defendants timely filed their reply on 3/26/14. The Court has read and considered the demurrer, opposition, and reply, and encourages the parties to ensure timely and proper service in the future in connection with this matter or to risk the Court refusing to consider any future late-filed papers.

b. Assault and Battery
Defendants demur to the assault and battery cause of action, contending there are no allegations in the complaint that they, as opposed to Heydari, assaulted or battered Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer, arguing Hart and Moore are liable for assault and battery because they “gave substantial assistance and encouragement” to Heydari.

The parties agree that a defendant who substantially assists or encourages another to assault and batter the plaintiff will be held jointly liable for the assault and battery. Defendants argue, however, that they did nothing other than “fail to stop” Heydari’s assault and battery, which is not sufficient. The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds it alleges Hart and Moore did more than fail to stop Heydari’s assault and battery. For example, at ¶¶11 and 12 of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
While Defendant Hart kept a close eye out for any witnesses, Defendant Heydari kicked the Plaintiff on his shin and repeatedly stomped on his feet. When Plaintiff tried to explain to Defendant Pink that he was not trying to take pictures of the baby naked and she should stop Defendants from hurting him, she refused to listen to him and used words like, “You deserve it,” and called Plaintiff words like “asshole.”
When Plaintiff tried to get up from his seat and leave, Defendants Hart and Heydari blocked his way and Defendant Heydari kneed him in the groin. Because of these wrongful actions, Plaintiff called 911 for the police, and, while Plaintiff was speaking to the operator, Defendant Heydari again tried to kick him in the chest. Thereafter, Defendant Heydari kicked the Plaintiff’s camera off the table to the ground and broke it.

Plaintiff thus alleges, at a minimum, that Moving Defendants “kept an eye out for witnesses,” used encouraging language during the course of the attack, and actively blocked him from leaving during the course of the attack. A reasonable juror could find this to amount to substantially assisting in and/or encouraging the attack, and therefore the demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled.

c. Destruction of Property
The parties agree that the same standard applies to this cause of action. The analysis of this cause of action is slightly more difficult, as the only allegation is that Heydari kicked the camera off the table and broke it. The Court is inclined to find that Plaintiff alleges the entire incident was one incident, and if Hart and Moore were assisting with the incident in general, then they can be held liable for all aspects of the incident, including the destruction of the camera. For example, it is alleged that Plaintiff tried to leave before the camera was destroyed, but Moving Defendants blocked him from doing so.

d. IIED
Because the complaint adequately states claims for assault and battery and also destruction of property, the Court finds the complaint adequately states a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The demurrer to the third cause of action is therefore also overruled.

Dated this 3rd day of April, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court