Filed 7/13/22 Koerber v. Encyclopaedia Britannica CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO KIMBERLY KOERBER, B312047 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV12846) v. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed. Gary Rand & Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis, Suzanne E. Rand- Lewis and Timothy Rand-Lewis for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jackson Lewis, Andrea F. Oxman, Eve Tilley-Coulson and Dylan B. Carp for Defendants and Respondents. ****** Kimberly Koerber (appellant) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained demurrers to all nine causes of action appellant alleged against respondents Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Britannica), and Michael Ross (Ross) (collectively respondents) without leave to amend. Appellant also challenges the trial court’s order denying, in part, appellant’s motion to strike and/or tax costs. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment and the order. BACKGROUND Appellant’s complaint On April 12, 2019, appellant filed a complaint against respondents alleging causes of action for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, (3) negligence, (4) fraud, (5) wrongful refusal to hire, (6) violation of the California Constitution, (7) violation of civil rights, (8) violation of Labor Code section 1101, and (9) violation of Labor Code section 1102.1 Appellant alleged that in 2016, she was employed by a third party sales consultant. During a private conversation while off work, appellant “expressed private personal political, feminist and religious opinions.” Her private conversation was “illegally recorded by a hidden camera without her knowledge” by “undercover operatives” of an entity called Project Veritas. After being recorded, appellant’s private political comments were edited and produced in a promotion piece to market Project Veritas’ conservative agenda, which Project Veritas then 1 Appellant named Ross as a defendant on all causes of action except the fifth. 2 disseminated through social media. The video was edited to “clearly show that [appellant] was engaging in a private conversation about private personal political, feminist and religious beliefs” and “that she was unaware that she was being recorded.” Project Veritas’ actions “resulted in [appellant’s] wrongful termination” by her third party employer. After her termination, appellant learned of an open sales position with Britannica through a headhunter. Appellant applied for the position titled “Western Regional Sales Executive.” Prior to applying, appellant confirmed that respondents were aware of the facts related to the 2016 Project Veritas recording, dissemination of the video, as well as the fact that she was wrongfully terminated because she expressed private opinions relating to her personal political, feminist and religious beliefs …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals