Nazemi v. Goodman
Filed 8/10/10 Nazemi v. Goodman CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
PATRICK NAZEMI,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BERNARD GOODMAN, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B209989
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LC075586)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Bert Glennon
Jr., Judge. Reversed.
Derek
L. Tabone for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Procter,
Slaughter & Reagan and Lisa N. Shyer for Defendants and Respondents.
______________________________
Plaintiff
Patrick Nazemi appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendants Bernard and Rose Goodman. The
trial court granted the motion on the basis that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding
Nazemi's claim of vicarious liability for the actions of Jaime Colon, a
security guard of Strike Force Protective Services, Inc. (Strike Force). Moreover, the trial court granted summary judgment
on Nazemi's claim against the Goodmans for their alleged, independent tortious
conduct. For the reasons discussed
below, we reverse, finding triable issues of material fact regarding the
vicarious liability claim on the theory of agency.
SYNOPSIS
Background
Patrick
Nazemi and the Goodmans are next door neighbors in an exclusive neighborhood in
Lake Encino, California. On June
30, 2004, when the Goodmans were out of town, their home was
burglarized and vandalized. Shortly
thereafter, the Goodmans decided to hire a company to provide security services
at night on their property. They
contacted their home security company, ADT, and it referred the Goodmans to
Strike Force, a company that provides security guard services.
Employment of Strike Force
While
there is some dispute as to whether the Goodmans or their son, Jeff, made the
initial contact with Strike Force, the Goodmans eventually employed Strike
Force to guard the Goodman property from 9:00
p.m. to 9:00 a.m. every
day. Either the Goodmans or Jeff
initially spoke with Jaime Colon, who later became one of the security guards
for the Goodman residence. Colon
had both supervisory and managerial responsibilities at Strike Force.
During
the preliminary conversations with Colon,
the Goodmans decided that they wanted a guard, armed with a gun at all times,
to â€
| Description | Plaintiff Patrick Nazemi appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Bernard and Rose Goodman. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding Nazemi's claim of vicarious liability for the actions of Jaime Colon, a security guard of Strike Force Protective Services, Inc. (Strike Force). Moreover, the trial court granted summary judgment on Nazemi's claim against the Goodmans for their alleged, independent tortious conduct. For the reasons discussed below, Court reverse, finding triable issues of material fact regarding the vicarious liability claim on the theory of agency. |
| Rating |
