Moe v. Anderson
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Paula Moe and Edelmira Moe, both patients, allege sexual assaults by Dr. Scott Dodd Anderson during 2009 treatment sessions; Paula and Edelmira later sued Anderson and Healthworks for medical malpractice, battery, sexual battery, IIED, and loss of consortium.
- The plaintiffs sued in one action, seeking to join their husbands as plaintiffs for loss of consortium, asserting Healthworks negligently hired/supervised Anderson.
- The trial court sustained Anderson’s demurrer for misjoinder under CCP §378, dismissing the entire action against Anderson but allowing Healthworks claims to proceed.
- Plaintiffs argued joinder was proper because the assaults occurred in one practice location and Healthworks’ hiring/supervision related the claims; defendants argued the assaults were separate transactions.
- The appellate court held: (1) joinder was improper as to Anderson due to separate occurrences; (2) joinder was proper as to Healthworks because claims arose from the same hiring/supervision series; (3) remanded for Healthworks-specific considerations; (4) affirmed dismissal against Anderson and reversed/directed reconsideration for Healthworks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is joinder proper against Anderson under CCP §378? | Paula and Edelmira share a common interest tied to Healthworks’ hiring of Anderson. | Two separate assaults on different victims cannot be one transaction. | Joinder improper as to Anderson. |
| Is joinder proper against Healthworks under CCP §378? | Healthworks’ negligent hiring/supervision of Anderson ties all claims. | Claims arise from distinct assaults; insufficient commonality. | Joinder proper as to Healthworks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Twin Coast Newspaper, Inc., 175 Cal.App.2d 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959) (liberal joinder aim; but misjoinder if no common series of transactions)
- Anaya v. Superior Court, 160 Cal.App.3d 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (series of transactions over time; common issues of fact and law)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (common scheme cases distinguishable; not controlling here)
- Aldrich v. Transcontinental Land etc. Co., 131 Cal.App.2d 788 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955) (common scheme requirement for joinder)