Chu

Chu v. Naik CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2015A142837California2,443 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

I. BACKGROUND

As relevant here, Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint asserted claims against Tribal Technologies (Cindy’s employer), Joseph Vierra (Cindy’s supervisor), Victoria Dinovich, and multiple Doe defendants. The claims arise from Cindy’s death at her workplace in October 2010. Cindy’s body was found on the rooftop of a breezeway in the office building where she worked for Tribal Technologies. Her death was deemed a 1 We refer to decedent by her first name to avoid confusion. We intend no disrespect.

1 suicide. Plaintiffs allege that Tribal Technologies employees Vierra and Dinovich murdered Cindy with the assistance of the Doe defendants, and all defendants covered up the crime. Plaintiffs assert claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision and retention, obstruction of justice, wrongful death, and “vicarious liability.” Plaintiffs eventually identified several Doe defendants, including respondents Vinayak Naik, Debbie Pranckitas, Charlie Lin, Elisia Chestang, Steven Clark, Rosanna Fay, Amrose Birani, Fred Xi, Jette Speights, Jon Davis, Jonathan Hecht, Saimon Rai, Samantha Wong, Paul Swanson, Shari…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.