Corey vs. The Regents of the University of California

The theory of negligent supervision may be applied to impose liability on a religious organization for childhood sexual abuse, assuming that the general requirements for this cause of action are met. (Mark K. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 603.) Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes. (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5th 1077.)

Defendant SCC argues that the SAC is silent as to the notice and timeline of the allegations that defendants Morgan, Alba, and/or Jackson were unfit or incompetent prior to being hired by SCC. Defendant further argues that the SAC does not allege that SCC had any prior knowledge of the employee’s unfitness. (See Z.V. v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 889, 902 ("To establish negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that a person in a supervisorial position over the actor had prior knowledge of the actor's propensity to do the bad act."))

The court agrees that the SAC does not cure these defects. It is unclear when the complaints were made and whether or not the cause of action is based on negligent retention only (i.e., retaining Morgan, Alba, and Jackson after complaints were made) and/or whether or not the cause of action encompasses negligent hiring (to which extent, the allegations are unclear that Defendant had knowledge of any complaints prior to hiring.

As such, Plaintiff fails to allege, at what time Defendant Morgan, Alba, and Jackson allegedly became incompetent/unfit, whether or not that time period occurred before or after Plaintiff’s claimed harm, and when/what particular risk or hazard and/or particular harm materialized.

For this reason, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend as to the fifth cause of action as against SCC.

Moving Defendants to give notice.

7 Corey vs. The Defendants Regents of the University of California and Angela Myer, M.D. Regents of the demur and move to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint filed by University of Plaintiff Jacie Ruelas Corey. For the following reasons, the demurrer California is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff shall file her Second Amended Complaint by September 10, 2026.

In light of this ruling, Defendants’ motion to strike is rendered moot.

On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Amended Complaint [¶] My First Amended Complaint.” However, this First Amended Complaint does not assert any causes of action.

CRC Rule 2.112 requires:

Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state: (1) Its number (e.g., “first cause of action”); (2) Its nature (e.g., “for fraud”); (3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., “by plaintiff Jones”); and (4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., “against defendant Smith”).

Failure to comply with CRC Rule 2.112 renders a complaint subject to special demurrer for uncertainty. (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1014 [“failure to comply with rule 2.112 presumably renders a complaint subject to a motion to strike (Code of Civ. Proc., § 436), or a special demurrer for uncertainty.”].)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint contains an attachment stating that Plaintiff amends certain allegations, but “all other allegations remain the same.” However, an “amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment.” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131.)

The original complaint ceases to have any effect and Plaintiff cannot rely on the allegations of the original complaint to assert a viable cause of action in the First Amended Complaint. Further, the First Amended Complaint does not assert any viable cause of action against Defendants.

Case Management Conference is continued to December 03, 2026, at 09:00 am in Department C10.

Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.

21