crime so committed. Thus, an accompliceis a principal (§ 1111) and a principal includes an aider and abettor (§ 31; People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 554.) An explication for the latter was provided by this Court in Beeman, supra: [T]he weight of authority and sound law require proof that an aider and abettor act with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of 364 . encouraging orfacilitating commissionof, the offense.

California Penal Code Section 31 has been applied to CIPA – a criminal statute – and defines “principals” as: All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or not being present have advised and encouraged its commission, … are principals in any crime so committed. CAL. PENAL CODE § 31 (emphasis added); see also Vera v. O’Keefe, 791 F. Supp. 2d 959, 963-65 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (applying Section 31 definition of principal to CIPA Case 3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM Document 81-1 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.1419 Page 16 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- Case No. 16-cv-1352 GPC BLM SMRH:483072932.2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS claim and finding that plaintiff could bring CIPA claim against one of two investigative journalists who carried out secret video and audio taping of conversation because non-recording journalist was a principal who was present during in the recording and aided and abetted in the commission of the crime).

Beeman, 35 Cal. 3d at 561. For the reasons set forth below, any claims of Defendant’s liability based upon Cal. Pen. Code § 31 are unfounded. Importantly, it is necessary to establish that vicarious liability and aider and abettor liability are different.

Beeman, 35 Cal. 3d at 561. For the reasons set forth below, any claims of Defendant’s liability based upon Cal. Pen. Code § 31 are unfounded. Importantly, it is necessary to establish that vicarious liability and aider and abettor liability are different.

Beeman, 35 Cal. 3d at 561. For the reasons set forth below, any claims of Defendant’s liability based upon Cal. Pen. Code § 31 are unfounded. Importantly, it is necessary to establish that vicarious liability and aider and abettor liability are different.

California Penal Code Section 31 has been applied to the CA Privacy Act and defines “principals” as: All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or not being present have advised and encouraged its commission, … are principals in any crime so committed. CAL. PENAL CODE § 31 (emphasis added); see also Vera v. O’Keefe, 791 F. Supp. 2d 959, 963-65 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (applying Section 31 definition of principal to CA Privacy Act claim and finding that plaintiff could bring CA Privacy Act claim against one of two investigative journalists who carried out secret video and audio taping of conversation because non-recording journalist was a principal who was present during in the recording and aided and abetted in the commission of the crime).