What is cyber exploitation – distribution of private sexually explicit materials?

Civil Revenge Porn Law Civil Code § 1708.85:

In pertinent part, Civil Code § 1708.85 provides: “(a) A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes by any means a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another, without the other’s consent, if:

  1. the person knew that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private,
  2. the distributed material exposes an intimate body part of the other person, or shows the other person engaging in an act of intercourse, oral copulation, sodomy, or other act of sexual penetration, and
  3. the other person suffers general or special damages as described in Section 48a.”

General damages are defined in section 48a (d) to mean “damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings.” Special damages are defined to mean damages that “plaintiff alleges and proves that he or she has suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, or occupation.”

To state a cause of action under § 1708.85, then, plaintiff has to allege that defendant

  1. intentionally
  2. distributed images of plaintiffs engaging in intercourse,
  3. without plaintiffs’ consent,
  4. knowing that plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private and
  5. plaintiff suffered general or special damages as described in § 48a.

Useful Rulings on Cyber Exploitation – Distribution of Private Sexually Explicit Materials

Recent Rulings on Cyber Exploitation – Distribution of Private Sexually Explicit Materials

DOE VS GRACIE

Previously the Court ruled that the original complaint did not allege sufficiently wide distribution, because the complaint failed to allege a basis to attribute defendant Cesar Gracie’s distribution to defendant Russell. The FAC corrects that problem. Collectively, the FAC now alleges that the sexually explicit photograph has been distributed to 100 people, including 60 in Brazil. (FAC, ¶ 52.) The general and special demurrers to this cause of action are overruled.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

Code § 1708.85). The statute does not, however, disfavor jury trials in actions brought under that section or otherwise limit a defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s argument that she is attempting to protect her minor children from additional exposure to media coverage regarding the revenge porn claims by seeking to have those claims tried as a bench trial. Perhaps that argument will ultimately prevail upon Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

JANE DOE VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Defendant is really attacking the pleading for failure to state a cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1708.85 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act[1]. However, a motion to strike may not be utilized as a demurrer: Preliminarily, we note a motion to strike is generally used to reach defects in a pleading which are not subject to demurrer. A motion to strike does not lie to attack a complaint for insufficiency of allegations to justify relief; that is a ground for general demurrer. (Warren v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

M B VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

., Civil Code §1708.85. Petitioner does not meet any of these criteria. He is on the DOJ’s child abuse index and seeks to get off it. He cites no statute which requires that his identity remain confidential. No exceptional circumstances exist that are highly sensitive and personal to him, such as sexual assault victim or HIV status. The injury Petitioner seeks to avoid will not be incurred by disclosure of his identity. He already is on CACI.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DOE VS. GRACIE

First Cause of Action, Violation of Civil Code § 1708.85: In pertinent part, Civil Code § 1708.85 provides: “(a) A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes by any means a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another, without the other’s consent, if (1) the person knew that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, (2) the distributed material exposes an intimate body part of the other person, or shows

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

BRYAN JAMES VS ASH NAIR, ET AL.

Code § 1708.85(a).) However, there shall be no liability if the distributed material was previously distributed by another person. (Civ. Code § 1708.85(c)(6).) In this case, the FAC claims that Nair, who Plaintiff shared the alleged content with, admitted that he shared the intimate content with several individuals, including Defendant Corbett who shared the content with additional people. (FAC ¶¶ 9, 12.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOE VS JONES

The fees are sought pursuant to Civil Code §1708.85(e) and CCP §2033.240. Plaintiff was the prevailing party on the Civil Code §1708.85 cause of action. "The court may [] grant, after holding a properly noticed hearing, reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff." Civ.C. §1708.85(e).

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOE VS JONES

The fees are sought pursuant to Civil Code §1708.85(e) and CCP §2033.240. Plaintiff was the prevailing party on the Civil Code §1708.85 cause of action. "The court may [] grant, after holding a properly noticed hearing, reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff." Civ.C. §1708.85(e).

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN DOE V. MARCELLA FOSSELLA, ET AL.

Code, § 1708.85, subd. (f)(1) [“A plaintiff who proceeds using a pseudonym and excluding or redacting identifying characteristics as provided in this section shall file with the court and serve upon the defendant a confidential information form for this purpose that includes the plaintiff's name and other identifying characteristics excluded or redacted.”].)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

ANTONIO CAILAN ET AL VS ARCHDIOCESE OF LA ET AL

Code § 1708.85. On August 20, 2018, the church member Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which Plaintiffs did not oppose. On August 21, 2018, the church Defendants filed their own anti-SLAPP motion, which Plaintiffs opposed. On September 12, 2018, the court granted both anti-SLAPP motions, struck the complaint, and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. On October 5, 2018, Defendants filed the instant attorney fee motion. On January 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

JANE DOE VS TOKYO VILLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

Tokyo Villa avers that the only statute that would allow Plaintiff to use a pseudonym is Civil Code 1708.85, which provides, in relevant part, that: (a) A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes by any means a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another, without the other’s consent… (f) A plaintiff in a civil proceeding pursuant to subdivision (a), may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONIO CAILAN ET AL VS ARCHDIOCESE OF LA ET AL

Code, § 1708.85 Anti-SLAPP motions to strike complaint On August 20, 2018, Defendants Jonna Malabanan, Natividad Inocencio, Rose Leano (“Parishioners”) filed their special motion to strike. On August 21, 2018, Defendants Father Ramon Valera, Father James Clarke, Father Alex Aclan, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (“Church” defendants) filed their special motion to strike. On August 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Church Defendants’ motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

DOE VS JONES

The Motion (ROA # 83) of Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") for a modification of injunction regarding use of Plaintiff's true name in subpoenas, pursuant to Civil Code 1708.85(f), and a continuance of trial and related dates, based on the requirements of the Revenge Porn Statute, Code of Civil Procedure 1708.85(f) which requires all documents filed, served, and used in discovery to use a pseudonym for Plaintiff, will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOE VS JONES

The Motion (ROA # 83) of Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") for a modification of injunction regarding use of Plaintiff's true name in subpoenas, pursuant to Civil Code 1708.85(f), and a continuance of trial and related dates, based on the requirements of the Revenge Porn Statute, Code of Civil Procedure 1708.85(f) which requires all documents filed, served, and used in discovery to use a pseudonym for Plaintiff, will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOE VS JONES

The Motion (ROA # 83) of Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") for a modification of injunction regarding use of Plaintiff's true name in subpoenas, pursuant to Civil Code 1708.85(f), and a continuance of trial and related dates, based on the requirements of the Revenge Porn Statute, Code of Civil Procedure 1708.85(f) which requires all documents filed, served, and used in discovery to use a pseudonym for Plaintiff, will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONIO CAILAN ET AL VS ARCHDIOCESE OF LA ET AL

Code, § 1708.85 (p. 12) On July 18, 2018, Defendant Archbishop filed this motion to disqualify. On August 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 6, 2018, Defendant Archbishop filed a reply. Relevant Background Information In April 2017, Ralph M. Rios emailed Father Clarke’s (using Clarke’s Archdiocese’s email address), accusing him and the Archdiocese of sending emails to parishes that adversely affected Together in Christ, and accusing Clarke of defaming Cailan and Together in Christ.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2018

JONES VS SHARP HEALTHCARE [E-FILE]

Distribution of Private Sexually Explicit Materials is dependent on Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to CC § 1708.85.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JONES VS SHARP HEALTHCARE [E-FILE]

Distribution of Private Sexually Explicit Materials is dependent on Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to CC § 1708.85.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JONES VS SHARP HEALTHCARE [E-FILE]

Distribution of Private Sexually Explicit Materials is dependent on Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to CC § 1708.85.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS JOHN ROE

To be blunt, the case revolves around a sexually explicit video, which wife claims husband stole from her computer and then used to blackmail her. Both parties are highly educated medical doctors. The complaint was filed July 18, 2016. ROA 1. There were profound problems with the initial filing, as plaintiff's counsel initially failed to comply with CRC 2.550. The court eventually worked out these issues. ROA 9-14. The defendant husband answered the complaint. ROA 30.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN DOE VS JOEL F TAMRAZ ET AL

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) public disclosure of private facts; (5) distribution of private sexually explicit materials (CCP §1708.85); and (6) civil conspiracy. Defendants now demur to each cause of action. The primary argument made by Defendants is that each cause of action is barred by the litigation privilege of Civil Code §47(b).

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2016

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.