What is negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Useful Rulings on Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Recent Rulings on Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

SHAFFER V RICE RANCH COMMUNITY LLC

On January 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (4) recovery on license bond; (5) negligence; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) is the bonding company for Shea Homes and the named defendant in the 4th cause of action for recovery on the license bond. It filed its demurrer on August 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

Prosecution Abuse of Process Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligence Cal.

  • Hearing

DEANNE DWORETZKY VS BRENDA BUONORA, ET AL.

On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff Deanne Dworetzy (Plaintiff) filed suit against Buonora Development, Inc. and Brenda Buonora (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) retaliation (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (4) wrongful termination; (5) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) defamation; (8) failure to pay wages; (9) failure to provide wage statements; (10) failure to provide employment records; (11) violation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WILLIAM BOYD CROOKSHANKS, ET AL. VS SERGEY DERMENDZHYAN, ET AL.

The Court questions whether this evidence would be admissible at trial because Plaintiffs did not assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress or otherwise reference these allegations in the complaint. To the contrary, the complaint asserts only causes of action relating to a motor vehicle collision. Nevertheless, a party may obtain discovery on any matter that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

  • Hearing

BLANCA Y NAVARRO, ET AL. VS ROBERT WU, ET AL.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Breach of Contract 10. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment On August 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein All County West Property Management aka All County Property Management West was named in lieu of Doe 1. On October 6, 2020, this action was transferred from Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court to this department. A Status Conference is set for November 30, 2020. 1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAROME BROWNLEE VS PUBLIC STORAGE,A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §§ 2698; (13) Negligence; (14) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (15) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 16) Failure to Timely Return Security Deposit; (17) Private Nuisance; (18) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (19) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 20) violation of the Unfair Competition Law- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17220, et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress “The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AALIYAH K VS WILLIAM S HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Hart Union High School District (“District”) and Nicole March (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) negligence under vicarious liability; and (3) breach of mandatory duty – negligent supervision. On February 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a notice of ruling, representing that the Court denied her petition to approve a compromise of pending action filed on November 21, 2019.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ERIKA COLMENARES VS LAS PALMITAS FRESH FRUIT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

of emotional distress; (10) violation of rest period law; (11) violation of meal period law; (12) violation of wage and hour laws – unpaid overtime wages; (13) violation of wage and hour laws – waiting time penalties; (14) failure to provide accurate wage statements / failure to keep records; (15) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (16) penalties and personal liability for violation of Labor Code section 558.1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DAVID BABAIE, ET AL. VS TRANS WEST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

On April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs David Babaie, Tatiana Babaie, and Leonard Mehrabian commenced this action against Defendants Trans West Investigations, Inc. and Antonio Villanueva for (1) unlawful installation of GPS tracker in violation of Penal Code section 637.7; (2) invasion of privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1708.8; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

DEBRA MCCOY, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LINDA MAE KUSHNER, AN INDIVIDUAL

On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to, in part, allege a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On October 7, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike punitive damages from the FAC pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). Trial is set for June 28, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to strike punitive damages from the FAC because Plaintiff has not stated a prima facie case for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

SHERYL BARNECK VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to, in part, allege a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On October 7, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike punitive damages from the FAC pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). Trial is set for June 28, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to strike punitive damages from the FAC because Plaintiff has not stated a prima facie case for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MASSIS DANIELIAN VS RICHARD DENOGEAN, ET AL.

By way of background, Plaintiffs commenced the 18STCV08110 action against Richard, Hong, and Mission on December 12, 2018 (“First Action”), alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) trespass, (5) nuisance, (6) IIED, (7) NIED, (8) negligence, and (9) wrongful eviction based on the same property and lease agreement and amendment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JORGE GUZMAN JR VS HECTOR CHAVEZ ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq. On August 30, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

DEBORAH ROSE, ET AL. VS FOUR TREES APARTMENTS, ET AL.

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs Deborah Rose and Christine Williams commenced this action against Defendants Four Trees Apartments and American Capital Realty Group, Inc. for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1941.1; (2) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) violation of Unfair Business Practices Act.

  • Hearing

MELISSA PERSON VS KENNETH D. MATHIS, ET AL.

.; (4) Sexual Harassment (Civil Code § 51.9); (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED"); (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code § 1194); (7) Failure to Pay Wages Upon Termination (Labor Code § 203); (8) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code § 226(a)); (9) Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Labor Code § 226(a)); and (10) Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Labor Code § 226(a)).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MOHAMMAD MEHDI-MOLLANOURI SHAMSI VS SUSAN GANS, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges statutory strict liability, common law strict liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from a dog bite that occurred on June 10, 2018. On July 15, 2020, Defendant Gans filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Horwitz seeking indemnification, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On July 24, 2020, the Court dismissed Defendant Horwitz from the complaint with prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CAROL ANN HOWARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANDREW MILLS TRUST VS ALBENCE & ASSOCIATES APC

A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must allege outrageous conduct. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.) As a matter of law, the court concludes the conduct alleged is not outrageous and therefore Plaintiff's claim fails. In addition, the claim is time-barred. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) The conduct complained of occurred in 2014.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATRICIA E. THOMAS, ET AL. VS MARYAM MOLHEMPOUR, ET AL.

The plaintiffs allege general negligence, motor vehicle negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from an automobile collision that occurred on September 14, 2018. On October 14, 2020, Petitioner Joe Wyatt, Jr. filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Joe D. Wyatt. An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for February 18, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Petitioner Joe Wyatt, Jr.

  • Hearing

AURIC ENERGY INC VS. RANGEL

of emotional distress, or conduct amounting to negligent infliction of emotional distress by any of the Rangel Defendants.

  • Hearing

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Ninth Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as to LAUSD The elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) are: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SU YANG, ET AL. VS JDW ASSOCIATION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;, ET AL.

Further, in reviewing the proposed Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that the proposed pleading includes two additional causes of action (8th and 9th Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and IIED) that are not addressed in the Motion or declaration. In their Reply, Plaintiffs have added an argument regarding the Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action, however, Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to this argument.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY

BACKGROUND The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, alleging causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) tortious breach of employment contract by termination; (3) wrongful demotion; (4) adverse employment action; (5) tortious breach of good faith and fair dealing; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence; and (9) defamation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NEFERTARI VS GRUPE MANAGEMENT

Bigelow’s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to plaintiff’s causes of action 1 (negligence), 3 (respondeat superior), 4 (negligent hiring and supervision), 5 (negligence per se), and 10 (negligent infliction of emotional distress). It is denied as to plaintiff’s cause of action 11 (UCL). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s complaint.

  • Hearing

EVELYN LOZADA VS OGOM CHIJINDU

Second Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress “A cause of action for IIED requires proof of: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress.” (Crouch v.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 373     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.