Vadura v. Ralphs Grocery
Filed 3/23/06 Vadura v. Ralphs Grocery CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| STANISLAV VADURA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035413 (Super. Ct. No. NC 032350) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Michael A. Lotta and Michael A. Lotta for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino, Ravi Sudan and Michael S. Ayers for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal from a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend depends on whether the employees of a grocery store shadowing two shoplifting suspects crossed over the line that protects reports of suspected criminal doings to the police (e.g., Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350), but does not protect actions, like making a citizen's arrest (e.g., Kesmodel v. Rand (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1128). We conclude that the line was not crossed because, try as the complaint might to disguise the fact, the ultimate decision to arrest the plaintiffs was made by the police, not the employees of the grocery store.
II. THE COMPLAINT
Since this case comes to us on an appeal from a judgment following a demurrer to a second amended complaint, we will now set forth and quote that complaint in detail, avoiding, of course, conclusions, deductions and legal assertions. (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638 [â€
