Plancarte v. Guardsmark, LLC, 118 Cal. App. 4th 640 (2004)
Eveilia Plancarte alleged that Toufik Kadah, a Guardsmark security guard, was responsible for assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of which allegedly occurred while she was working as a janitor in a building in which Kadah was working as a guard. Plancarte also alleged “respondeat superior,” negligent hiring and negligent supervision against Guardsmark. Guardsmark filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the alleged assault was not related to Kadah’s employment and there was no evidence of negligent hiring or supervision. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of Guardsmark on the ground that Kadah had not acted within the scope of his employment with Guardsmark: “[Kadah’s] assault of Plancarte cannot fairly be deemed attributable to any particular aspect of Guardsmark’s business of providing security services. In fact, it was directly contrary to the job he was hired to perform.” Furthermore, there was no evidence that the facts known to Guardsmark before the alleged assault made its decision to hire Kadah as an unsupervised security guard unreasonable. Finally, the Court found there to be no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant Plancarte a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence that Guardsmark had paid for Kadah’s defense in this action.