Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in California

Defendants demurred to the third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") and the fourth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"). Apparently in an attempt to avoid the demurrer, Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") for filing on February 27, 2018. The filing of the FAC was untimely. See CCP Sec. 472. As a result, the Court strikes the FAC and considers the demurrer on its merits directed to the original complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the First Cause of Action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in both complaints without leave to amend. Second Cause of Action Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress To state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must allege facts that would otherwise support a claim for negligence, such as duty, breach, causation, and damages. ( Eriksson v.

Second Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Albertson’s argues that Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) claim fails because the NIED claim is duplicative of the first cause of action for general negligence. Albertson’s contends that the complaint fails to allege facts which distinguish the NIED claim from the general negligence claim.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (6th Cause of Action) Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not a separate tort, but rather a species of negligence. Therefore, this cause of action is duplicative of the 1st cause of action for Negligence. As to Plaintiff Jane AG Doe: DENY Summary Judgment. DENY Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 1st cause of action for negligence and 5th cause of action for IIED.

The SAC alleges: 1) negligence; 2) negligence per se; 3) negligent hiring, screening, supervision, management and retention of unfit employee; 4) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”); 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); 6) intentional misrepresentation; & 7) negligent misrepresentation. Homewatch International is added as Doe 1. Authority Brands LLC is added as Doe 2. Homewatch Caregivers LLC is added as Doe 3 Attorney Kerry L.

Discussion Fourth Cause of Action (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). This cause of action is asserted against demurring Defendant Alyssa Alderman in her capacity as Defendant’s Human Resources Director. Complaint, ¶ 36. Plaintiff’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against Alderman is barred pursuant to workers compensation exclusivity.

On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed her third amended complaint (“TAC”), alleging causes of action against Defendants for: (1) Motor Vehicle – Personal Injury; (2) General Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); and (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”). The third cause of action for IIED is alleged only against defendant Dauffer and the remaining causes of action are alleged against all Defendants.

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and to the second cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in the SAC. Defendant also demurs to all claims brought by Plaintiff Richard Stritt. IIED (cause of action one) Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the SAC.

Seventh Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The demurrer is sustained with 14 days leave to amend for Plaintiffs to plead, if possible, sufficient allegations of outrageous conduct that is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. Eighth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend because there is no separate tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged five causes of action against Defendants: Breach of Contract; Negligent Misrepresentation; Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. The Court conducted a bench trial and on March 9, 2020, issued a Judgment. The Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor as to the Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims.

Joseph Hospital Orange’s demurrer to Plaintiff Angelica Fuentes Martinez’s third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Defendants St. Joseph Heritage Medical Group and St. Judge Heritage Medical Group’s demurrer to the third cause of action for IIED is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Their demurrer to the fourth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) is sustained without leave to amend.

(“Metro”): 1) Voidable Contract (Sales Agreement); 2) Breach of Contract 3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 4) Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Deceit; 5) Negligence; 6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”); 7) Obtaining Money by False Pretenses-Violation of Pen. Code 496.

Thus, to plead negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence must be established. There are two classifications for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims: (1) bystander and (2) direct victim. (See Spates, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at 213.) Here, Ms. Montoya asserts a NIED claim based on the bystander victim theory.

The demurrer places into issue all three causes of action (“COA”) for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED.”) Defendant further moves to strike the claim for punitive damages. Discussion Defendant argues that there are insufficient facts pled to support the elements of duty, breach and causation.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but OVERRULED as to the cause of action for negligence per se.

“The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is a variation of the tort of negligence. The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages apply.” Slaughter vs. Legal Process & Courier Serv. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1249. Accordingly, in order to recover on his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff must establish duty, breach of duty, causation and damages.

Defendant argues that the damages of the Plaintiffs Complaint in purely property damage therefore there can be no claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress[.] Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Demurrer at PDF p. 10.)

BACKGROUND On May 17, 2017, plaintiff Carlos Hartnell filed a complaint against defendant Justine Aihue Ngo for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On September 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and “negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

In what would otherwise be a straightforward dental malpractice case, P adds counts for NIED and IIED. Ds demur to both additional counts and move to strike the potions of the prayer seeking prejudgment interest and attorney fees. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not a separate tort, but is regarded as a subspecies of negligence. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072; Klein v. Children's Hospital Medical Center (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 889, 894.)

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: 1) motor vehicle negligence; 2) general negligence; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and 4) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). The Matzner (“Demurring Defendants”) now demur to Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action and move to strike certain portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint. When any ground for objection appears on the face of a complaint, a defendant may object by a demurrer to the pleading. Cal. Code of Civ.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action for: 1) Voidable Contract (Sales Agreement); 2) Breach of Contract 3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 4) Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Deceit; 5) Negligence; 6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”); 7) Obtaining Money by False Pretenses-Violation of Pen. Code 496.

July 24, 2018 The Demurrer to the First and Second Causes of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend as to the First Cause of Action only. The Motion to Strike the allegations of and the prayer for punitive damages is MOOT. I.

Analysis Demurrer Defendant moves to strike the third and fourth causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), respectively. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant argues that no independent tort for NIED exists and that it is an aspect of negligence, citing Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 984.

Fourth, as to the merits of the causes of action, the court overrules the demurrer to the causes of action for negligence, premises liability, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), Labor Code violations, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and sustains the demurrer to the causes of action for fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff Obdulia Prieto asserts a cause of action for loss of consortium. Now, Defendant demurs to the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”), which Plaintiffs oppose. The demurrer is overruled. LEGAL STANDARD “It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v.

Aimco demurs to the causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) Under Cal. Civ. Code §47(b), publications or broadcasts made during a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding cannot serve as the basis for tort liability.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. 6th C/A for NIED Under California law, negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but merely the tort of negligence, with the traditional elements of duty, breach, causation and damages. See Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.)

of emotional distress as to all defendants; and d) sustained without leave to amend as to the seventh cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress as to all defendants.

The Complaint alleges defamation, negligence, intentional interference with prospective economic relations (“Interference”), intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED.”)

Since NIED is not an independent tort and since Plaintiff already alleges a negligence claim based on professional negligence, the complaint cannot reasonably be amended. Thus, no leave is being granted to amend the fourth cause of action. Fifth Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Alessi contends that the complaint fails to adequately plead facts to constitute a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 796 n.4 - there is no tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, but instead it is negligence.) A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort. (See Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588; Macy's California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 744, 748.) The damages for causing emotional distress flow from the tort of negligence. (Id.)

As to the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action, negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort. "To be precise 'the [only] tort with which we are concerned is negligence.'" Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 875-76. Defendants contend that the conduct alleged is not negligent conduct; it is intentional conduct.

Discussion Defendant Western Dental demurs to the second cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and third cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Brett Lance Matzner to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff filed her operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 12, 2016, alleging causes of action for: 1) motor vehicle negligence; 2) general negligence; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and 4) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”).

DISCUSSION Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) is untimely because the statute of limitations is two years. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) The dog bite is alleged to have happened on February 14, 2019, whereas the filing stamp on the Complaint indicates that the Complaint was filed on February 19, 2019.

Therefore, the Court finds that Madatyan has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence, whether asserted as negligent infliction of emotional distress or under a negligence per se theory. Next, Sophy argues that the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) must fail because Madatyan has not alleged extreme and outrageous conduct.

(7) IIED and NIED Defendants demur to the ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) because extreme and outrageous conduct as well as severe emotional distress are not pled. Defendants demur to the tenth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) because Plaintiff has not pled the breach of any duty of care or serious emotional distress.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. The present motion is a demurrer to the SAXC brought by Marie. Marie challenges the SAXC under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e), arguing the SAXC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for either intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. The present motion is a demurrer to the SAXC brought by Marie. Marie challenges the SAXC under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e), arguing the SAXC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for either intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. The present motion is a demurrer to the SAXC brought by Marie. Marie challenges the SAXC under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e), arguing the SAXC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for either intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

These allegations may support a claim for negligence, but not the sexual battery claim alleged. 3rd Cause of Action for Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants contend the allegations are insufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").

Discussion Defendants argue Plaintiff cannot state a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress because Plaintiffs supporting allegations are conclusory and because negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort. I.

Defendant moves to strike Fiumani’s cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and request for punitive damages. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but a subcategory of negligence. Catsouras v. Dept. of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 875-876. Fiumani may recover for his own emotional distress under his negligence cause of action.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) – Eleventh Cause of Action To state an NIED claim, Plaintiff was required to allege, among other elements, a duty of care owed by Defendant pursuant to which Defendant owed a duty to care for Plaintiff's emotional well-being. Plaintiff argues that other courts have found such a duty in the employer-employee setting, citing three cases.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) 5. negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) Defendant concurrently moves to strike prayers for punitive damages and associated allegations. ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff has purchased health insurance from Defendant “for decades.” He alleges that his purchased policies are “private, not employer provided.” Although of questionable materiality, he alleges his premiums have been as high as $72,000 per year.

Although this cause of action is captioned differently from the negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claim asserted in Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Complaint, it is not "new" in that it is still based on Defendants' alleged negligent provision of dental treatment to Plaintiff, as was the NIED claim, and therefore the medical malpractice claim falls within the scope of permissible amendment under the Court's ruling on Defendants' prior demurrer.

of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress are: (1) legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such legal duty; (3) damage or injury; and (4) cause of the resulting damage or injury. (Huggins v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129.) There is no tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, but instead it is a form of negligence. (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 796 n.4.) Both claims are based on the filing of the lawsuits.

On December 1, 2021, Pina filed a First Amended Complaint alleging three causes of action: a Third Cause of Action for Fraud; a Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and a Fifth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED).

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress “There is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; rather, “’[t]he tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.’” Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 182, 205. C) Motion to Strike The Motion to Strike terminology relating to punitive damages is now moot on the basis that the Demurrer to the causes of action containing said language has been sustained.

Golf, Inc., Donovan Golf Partners, LLC, Land Donovan Golf Partners, LLC (“Donovan Defendants”) ask the Court to sustain their demurrer to Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Donovan Defendants argue negligent infliction of emotional distress is not recognized as a separate cause of action form ordinary negligence.

Thus, Plaintiffs have pled sufficient allegations to establish an IIED claim. Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs fifth cause of action is OVERRULED . Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Sixth Cause of Action) Defendant maintains Plaintiffs sixth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is duplicative of Plaintiffs cause of action for negligence.

Sustain, with leave to amend, Defendants' general demurrer to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"), on the grounds that Plaintiff still fails to allege facts sufficient to clearly distinguish the NIED claim from the first cause of action for professional negligence.

Thus, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As such the demurrer to the third cause of action for IIED is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend. B. Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant argues the fourth cause of action for NIED fails because it is not an independent tort and is otherwise subsumed in the ninth cause of action for negligence.

B. 3rd COA: NIED GRANTED with leave to amend, on this ground. Defendants argue correctly that the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868.) “The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is a variation of the tort of negligence. The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages apply.” (Slaughter vs. Legal Process & Courier Serv. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1249.)

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and the second cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress as to all plaintiffs and demurs to the entire SAC as to Plaintiff Richard Stritt. IIED (cause of action one) The Court previously ruled that the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint were insufficient to state a claim for IIED.

Demurrer to Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts to show that they had contemporaneous awareness that the decedent’s suffering was caused by the Defendants’ negligence. The Plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") is regarded as the tort of negligence. Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072.

of emotional distress; and (14) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds Plaintiffs do not allege any special relationship between the parties.

Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) NIED; (3) Wrongful Death; (4) Loss of Consortium; and (5) Medical Malpractice Survival Action. Defendant AHMC WHITTIER HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER LP (AHMC) generally demurs to the second cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ cause of action for NIED is barred by the doctrine of workers’ compensation exclusivity. As discussed above under IIED, to the extent Plaintiffs’ NIED claims are based on their claims of discrimination and harassment which are not a normal incident of employment, they are not precluded by the rule of workers’ compensation exclusivity.

Third Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Norms argues that Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) claim fails because except for the conclusory allegation that Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, the NIED claim is duplicative of the first cause of action for general negligence. In addition, Norms argues that the NIED claim fails as a matter of law because NIED has only been allowed in specific scenarios which are not applicable here.

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff Giovanni Rivas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, alleging a cause of action for general negligence, as well as a separate cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). On November 5, 2018, Defendant Regis Corporation (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the second cause of action, the NIED claim. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendant filed a reply brief.

Second Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress “The law of negligent infliction of emotional distress in California is typically analyzed . . . by reference to two ‘theories’ of recovery: the ‘bystander’ theory and the ‘direct victim’ theory . . . The negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but the tort of negligence . . . The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply.” (Burgess v.

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Swinerton Builders and Swinerton Builders HC's demurrer to plaintiffs Christian Lucore, a minor by his guardian ad litem, Steven Lucore, Jr., Kevin Lucore and Tricia Lucore's fourth amended complaint is sustained, without leave to amend to the third cause of action for premises liability and the fourth and fifth causes of action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The demurrer to the second cause of action for negligence is overruled.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Defamation, (2) False Light, (3) Negligence, (4) Civil Harassment, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED), and (7) Declaratory Relief against Defendants DOES 1-20. No trial date has yet been set.

The court overrules the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for direct negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) because defendant has not sufficiently distinguished Andalon v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600 (Andalon), and it overrules the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for bystander NIED because defendant has not sufficiently distinguished Wilks v. Hom (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1273.

However, this is distinguishable from the injury in a NIED cause of action. There is no tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, but instead it is a form of negligence. (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 796 n.4.) Negligent infliction of emotional distress is divided into two claims, direct victim claims or bystander claims. (Smith v. Pust (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Sok Hun Yun and Sung Yun Ahn filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging (1) fraudulent conveyance; (2) accounting; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). On February 7, 2023, Defendants filed a demurrer and a motion to strike.

of emotional distress (x 2), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (x 2).

Plaintiff’s SAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Wrongful Death; and (4) Breach of Contract. The Court notes that on January 26, 2017, Plaintiff’s request for file a third amended complaint was denied without prejudice. Demurrer: Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Accordingly, summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action is granted. 3rd cause of action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (v. all defendants) Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort; rather, it is the tort of negligence and so, a duty of care must be established as a necessary element. See, Uhrich v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 598, 617 [“[T]here is no ‘cause of action’ for NIED.

A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) has not been stated here. There are very specific circumstances under which a claim for NIED can be brought, and Estella does not meet any of them. A “direct victim” case is one in which the plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress is based on the violation of a duty that the defendant owes directly to the plaintiff. Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182.

ANALYSIS Plaintiffs have adequately pled their First Cause of Action for negligence, making their Third Cause of Action for negligent infliction of emotional distress duplicative. There is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; rather, “[t]he tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” (Potter v.

Third Cause of Action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress The court finds that Plaintiff has adequately pled his first and second causes of action for Motor Vehicle – Personal Injury and General Negligence, making his third cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress duplicative. There is no independent tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Instead, “[t]he tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” (Potter v.

The gravamen of this complaint for (1) negligence, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“iied”), (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“nied”) and (5) fraud is that Plaintiff suffered bed bug bites while staying in a room at Defendant’s hotel on the night of 09/29/2017 and that an extermination company determined that the room was infected when Plaintiff arrived.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ complaint pleads the following Causes of Action against all named Defendants: Medical Negligence; Negligence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Loss of Consortium. Presently before the Court are five distinct, unopposed demurrers from five different Defendants: Molina Hospital Management, Inc. demurs to the First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action. Ziyad Ayyoub, M.D. and Meher F.

There is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; rather, “[t]he tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965, 984.) The doctrine of “negligent infliction of emotional distress” is not a separate cause of action. It simply allows certain persons to recover damages for emotional distress only on a negligence cause of action even though they were not otherwise injured or harmed.

Gov’t Code §12940(J)(1)]; (4) Violation of Public Policy; (5) Violation of Article 1, § 8 of the California Constitution; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Retaliation [Cal. Labor Code§1102.5]; (9) Defamation; and (10) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract. The instant Demurrer and MTS are as to COAs 6 and 7 in that TAC, and the punitive damages allegations in the TAC. The Demurrer filed by Defendants Biola University, Inc. and Barry H.

The Court also noted at that time that Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is not an independent cause of action. The California Supreme Court has made as much clear. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are pursuing the NIED as an independent claim. The Court does not find this to be the case.

(“SPS”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-SB1 the Trust (“Harborview Trust”), and Hovhannes Yesayan (“Yesayan”): (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) quiet title; (3) declaratory relief; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”); and (6) fraud. Defendants SPS and Deutsche Bank filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s SAC on December 20, 2017.

(“MSST”), and Does 1-50 for (1) negligence, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”), (3) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of an employee, and (4) battery. On November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.

INTRODUCTION Defendants City Logistics & Transportation and Armando Reyes move for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ 3rd cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”). ALLLEGATIONS AND UNDISPUTED FACTS On October 16, 2016 Plaintiff Eddie Jones was driving his motorcycle in the northbound lanes of Santa Fe Avenue in the City of Compton.

Analysis Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a form of the tort of negligence, to which the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages apply& (Huggins v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129-130.) The law of negligent infliction of emotional distress in California is typically analyzed&by reference to two theories' of recovery: the bystander theory and the direct victim theory. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.)

Defendant Jose Ramirez' Demurrer to the fourth (intentional infliction of emotional distress) cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 3) Defendant Luis Ramirez' Demurrer to the second (false imprisonment) and third (negligent infliction of emotional distress) causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend on or before March 23, 2009. Defendant Luiz Ramirez' Demurrer to the fourth (intentional infliction of emotional distress) cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

NIED and Negligence Plaintiffs allege claims for both negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort. "To be precise 'the [only] tort with which we are concerned is negligence.'" Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 875-76. But plaintiffs offer no support for the NIED cause of action, except to agree that it is a form of negligence.

The SAC alleges seven causes of action for (1) negligence by asserted against Jacobi , (2) negligence and negligence per se against TTG and Ferguson , (3) negligence common carrier against TTG , (4) negligent entrustment against TTG, (5) negligent hiring, supervision and/or retention of employees against TTG, ( 6 ) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against all defendants, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Jacobi .

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, without leave to amend, and OVERRULED as to the Second, Third, Fourth, and Seventh Causes of Action. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS — FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged outrageous conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (or “IIED”). (Demurrer at p. 8.)

Issue 2: Katz argues that based on undisputed facts, Lisa cannot establish a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against Melissa Katz Defendant Katz argues that Plaintiff Lisa will not be able to establish the elements to state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The requirements set out in Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 are not met.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a form of the tort of negligence, to which the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages apply. ( Huggins v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129.) There are two classifications for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims: (1) bystander and (2) direct victim. (See Spates v. Dameron Hospital Association (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213.)

Based on the foregoing, Williams’s motion for leave to add a cause of action for NIED against Van Deventer is denied. Tentative Ruling: The motion of plaintiff David Williams for leave to add a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is denied.

(“Minye”) and Beautiful Smile Dental Group for (1) dental malpractice, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) relating to dental care performed by Minye at Beautiful Smile Dental Group’s facility. On 3/4/21, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to the second cause of action for intentional infliction of emotion distress.

Third Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because it is not an independent tort and it thus falls under the dental malpractice cause of action. Plaintiff argues that the dental malpractice and negligence causes of action are the basis of Plaintiff’s emotional distress and thus give rise to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

Third Cause of Action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress NIED is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence. (Macy’s California, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 744, 748.) “The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply.” (Id.)

These defendants demur to the third cause of action for trespass and the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The moving party's notice of the demurrer erroneously identifies that fourth cause of action as being a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. But the memorandum of points and authorities argues that plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

BACKGROUND On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff John Doe filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant Southern California Healthcare System dba Southern California Hospital at Culver City, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of the Bane Act; (2) assault and battery; (3) false arrest and imprisonment; (4) negligence; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.”

Discussion IIED Defendant demurs as to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, arguing Plaintiff failed to pled any extreme and outrageous conduct on Defendants part.