Sadeghi v. Yen-Chun Chen

IMAN SADEGHI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YEN-CHUN CHEN et al., Defendants and Respondents

B312596

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

February 23, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC709376, Lia R. Martin, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Fernald Law Group, Adam P. Zaffos and Brandon C. Fernald for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Benjamin Davidson, Benjamin Davidson; Bartko Zankel Bunzel &Miller, Charles Griffith Towle, and Ronnie Shou for Defendants and Respondents.

STRATTON, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Upon appellant Dr. Iman Sadeghi's (Sadeghi) arrival at his place of employment, he was given notice that his employment was terminated and it would be his last day of work. Despite requests by his supervisor to immediately turn in his work laptop, Sadeghi did not do so and stated that he would return it by the end of the day; he attempted to leave the office and office building with the work laptop in his backpack. Instructed by the supervisor to follow Sadeghi and retrieve the work laptop, three of Sadeghi's coworkers surrounded him, restrained him on the ground, and physically accosted him while retrieving the laptop from his backpack. Sadeghi sued his coworkers, alleging battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.

Based primarily on the sham pleading doctrine, the trial court sustained a demurrer to Sadeghi's claims without leave to amend and dismissed this action as to the coworkers. Sadeghi appeals from the judgment of dismissal and underlying order sustaining the demurrer.

We reverse the judgment of dismissal. We conclude the sham pleading doctrine does not apply. We also conclude Sadeghi's claims are not preempted by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule. We find Sadeghi sufficiently pleaded his causes of action for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress; we reverse the order sustaining the demurrer in that regard. We affirm in all other respects.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Events Leading to Filing of Civil Complaint

Sadeghi is an award-winning computer graphics engineer, who developed a novel digital hair rendering framework for the production of the movie Tangled (Walt Disney Pictures (2010)) while working at Walt Disney Animation Studios.^[1] Sadeghi joined Google as a software engineer in 2011 and remained employed there for years.

Dr. Hao Li (Li) is co-founder and chief executive officer of Pinscreen, Inc. (Pinscreen), a software startup that specializes in the generation of animated 3D face models (i.e., avatars) by use of a person's photograph. In 2016 Li solicited Sadeghi to leave Google and join Pinscreen's leadership. On January 23, 2017, Sadeghi accepted an offer to join Pinscreen as its vice president of engineering. Two days later, Sadeghi gave his resignation letter to Google.

According to Sadeghi's original complaint, his employment at Pinscreen was short-lived and lasted six months-from February 2, 2017 to August 7, 2017. On August 7, 2017, within an hour of Sadeghi's arrival at Pinscreen's office, Li and Pinscreen's chief financial officer Yen-Chun Chen (Chen) held a meeting with Sadeghi and handed him a termination letter from Pinscreen. Sadeghi "requested to meet Pinscreen's full board of directors before the termination decision was final, to which Li responded 'sure.'" (Italics added.) "Before Sadeghi had a chance to read the termination letter, Li suddenly lost his temper, slammed the conference room door open and yelled at Sadeghi to leave the room, in front of Sadeghi's coworkers, in a humiliating and embarrassing manner."

"Concerned by Li's aggressive behavior, Sadeghi decided to leave Pinscreen's office." Li, however, "physically blocked the door of the office" and "demanded Sadeghi's work laptop" which was inside the backpack Sadeghi was wearing. Sadeghi told Li he "intended to return the laptop before the end of business day" after he "preserved his personal data" from the work laptop. Sadeghi then left Pinscreen's office and headed toward the building elevators. Li "ordered some of Pinscreen's employees to follow Sadeghi."

Li and three Pinscreen employees entered the elevator with Sadeghi. After exiting the elevator, Sadeghi "attempted to leave the building through the lobby" but the three Pinscreen employees "under Li's commands," surrounded Sadeghi, "grabbed" him and the backpack he was wearing, "violently restrained him, forcibly opened his backpack and took possession of Sadeghi's work laptop." Sadeghi "believe[d] that without Li's orders, the other employees would not have participated in committing the crime." As a result, Sadeghi suffered injuries to his eye and his previously dislocated shoulder, requiring medical attention and physical therapy. He also suffered severe mental and emotional distress.

On June 11, 2018, Sadeghi filed a 160-page civil complaint against Pinscreen and Li, alleging 17 causes of action. The complaint alleged the information recited above. We note, however, that elsewhere in the original complaint, Sadeghi alleged: "In retaliation for [his] . . . whistleblowing regarding Li's . . . unlawful practices, Pinscreen illegally terminated Sadeghi, on August 7, 2017, within Sadeghi's first working hour."

Sadeghi attached as an exhibit to the complaint a copy of his employment contract and confidential information agreement attachment (employment contract) with Pinscreen, signed January 23, 2017. The employment contract contains a section entitled "Company Property; Returning Company Documents" with the following terms: Sadeghi agreed and acknowledged he has "no expectation of privacy with respect to the Company's telecommunications, networking or information processing systems . . . and that [his] activity and any files or messages on or using any of those systems may be monitored or reviewed at any time without notice." (Italics added.) Sadeghi agreed that "any property situated on the Company's premises and owned by the Company . . . is subject to inspection by Company personnel at any time with or without notice." The contract additionally specified that "at the time of termination of the [work] relationship, [Sadeghi] will deliver to the Company (and will not keep in [his] possession . . .) any and all devices, records, data, . . . equipment, other documents or property . . . belonging to the Company."

B. Sadeghi's First Amended Complaint

A few months later, on October 5, 2018, Sadeghi filed a 274-page first amended complaint (FAC). In addition to Pinscreen and Li, Sadeghi added as named defendants the three Pinscreen employees-Chen, Liwen Hu (Hu), and Han-Wei Kung (Kung)-who allegedly assaulted him. We collectively refer to Chen, Hu, and Kung as respondents. The FAC contained 15 causes of action total, only three of which were pleaded against respondents, namely, (1) battery, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and (3) invasion of privacy.

Overall, the FAC alleged the same facts included in the original complaint. It repeated the allegation that upon being provided the termination letter from Li and Chen, Sadeghi requested to meet with Pinscreen's board of directors before the termination decision was final, to which Li agreed. Elsewhere in the FAC, however, Sadeghi also alleged he was "illegally terminated . . . within [his] first working hour" on August 7, 2017. The FAC included a copy of the termination letter, which stated: Sadeghi's "last day of employment with Pinscreen, Inc., is August 7, 2017" and proposed a severance package in exchange for a general release by Sadeghi. The letter also "remind[ed]" Sadeghi of his "continuing obligation to uphold the provisions of the [employment contract]."

The FAC also reiterated the allegations that Li demanded that Sadeghi return the work laptop during the meeting and Sadeghi's intention to return the laptop "before the end of business day . . . after he preserved his personal data." It repeated that respondents surrounded and restrained Sadeghi, opened his backpack, and took possession of the work laptop "under Li's commands." It also repeated that the altercation occurred inside the building lobby. The altercation was captured on the security cameras of the building where Pinscreen's office is located.

C. Demurrer to the FAC

Pinscreen and Li filed a demurrer and a motion to strike portions of Sadeghi's FAC, joined by respondents. They argued Sadeghi's battery and IIED claims are barred because it is subject to the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule. They further argued the battery claim is "fatally deficient" as it did not allege respondents "intended to harm or offend" Sadeghi.

They also argued Sadeghi's invasion of privacy claim fails because he had no expectation of privacy on a work-issued computer and referred to terms in the employment contract that states as such.

On April 11, 2019, the trial court held the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike portions of the FAC. The trial court ruled: The FAC "contains 439 paragraphs of allegations, in 74 pages, plus approximately 200 pages of exhibits. It includes emails, skypes, diagrams, pictures, policies, conversations, and day-to-day actions of parties and non-parties." The court struck the FAC "as not drawn in conformity with the laws of the state and rules of court" and for containing "irrelevant and improper material" (per Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1) &436, subds. (a), (b)). The court provided Sadeghi a 20-day window to file an amended complaint in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10.

D. Sadeghi's Second Amended Complaint

On May 1, 2019, Sadeghi filed a second...