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

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Plaintiff, though, simply alleges the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and asks the Court to determine the basis of the claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress “The elements of a prima facie case for 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

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), alleging: (1) violation of Ralph Civil Rights Act; (2) battery; (3) assault; (4) interference with exercise of civil rights; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligence (premise liability). On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC). However, Plaintiff did not properly move for leave to amend, and the TAC was order stricken on February 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

ARTEMIO PEREZ ET AL VS JS UNION LLC ET AL

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege for breach of lease agreement, tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, statutory breach of warranty of habitability, negligence, premises liability, violation of LAMC §1501.04 and Civil Code §1947.11 – charging excessive rent, nuisance, collection of rent on substandard dwelling (Civil Code section 1942.4), constructive eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Business & Professions Code

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

MARITZA BEST, ET AL. V. SEVEN J. SHERWIN, ET AL.

Emailed 7/10 Background Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed June 12, 2018, alleges causes of action for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, both common law and statutory breach of the implied warranty of habitability, private nuisance, breach of contract, and retaliatory eviction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CHRISTIAN CARRANZA VS DAVID PHILLIP MEYI, ET AL.

The complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for an automobile collision that occurred on February 8, 2017. On March 6, 2020, Defendant Lyft, Inc., filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). A trial setting conference is scheduled for March 24, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Lyft, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

C AYRAPETYAN VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 7, 2018, alleging five causes of action: Negligence (Vicarious Liability) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention of Employees Assault and Battery Premises Liability Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant City of Glendale.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

Accordingly, the causes of action added to the Second Amended Complaint (fraud, deceit (concealment), and negligent infliction of emotional distress) were improperly added without leave of the Court. Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court’s December 5, 2019 order did not preserve any cause of action for deceit. Rather, the Court’s order sustained with leave to amend only a cause of action for misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RABBIT RIDGE WINE SALES, INC. ET AL. V. UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for Plaintiffs’ complaint includes causes of action for (1) breach of written insurance agreement (against Unigard); (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – bad faith (against Unigard); (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against Unigard); and (4) negligence (against Relation).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

Fair Oaks Fire Protection District, which discusses “extreme and outrageous conduct” with respect to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, not nuisance. (See (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148, 155, fn. 7.) Plaintiff at trial offered evidence of ongoing harassing behavior by Defendant and Plaintiff’s feeling of being tense. (See, e.g., Caldwell Decl. Exh. 7, at pp. 52, 66, 79.) The court is not persuaded that the jury “clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RIDGE CONLAN, ET AL. VS ROCKIN' RESCUE, ET AL.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Ridge Conlan, his wife, Lori Conlan, and their daughter, Samantha Conlan commenced this action against Rockin’ Rescue, AGWC Rockin’ Rescue, and Ady Gil (“Defendants”) on April 4, 2019 for (1) fraud; (2) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (3) fraud – negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of duty of honesty and fair dealing and good faith; (5) negligence; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

POGHOS KAREN "GARY" MADATYAN VS MELANIE JANINE "MEL B" BROWN, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FELIPE GARCIA INGUEZ ET AL VS TED GUERRA

Introduction On February 27, 2019, Defendant Ted Guerra (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication on all the causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitaiblity, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Private Nuisance, Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, and Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 in Plaintiffs Felipe Garcia-Inguez, Madai Najera, Felipe

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) wrongful foreclosure, (3) quiet title, (4) declaratory relief, (5) slander of title, (6) slander of credit, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) cancellation of instruments, and (9) unfair business practices. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. In August 2005, Plaintiff purchased real property located at 3539 South Cochran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90016 (Property). (Compl. ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

XIAOFAN SUN VS HRC FERTILITY CLINIC, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 15, 2019, alleging six causes of action sounding in: (1) Fraud; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (4) Professional Negligence; (5) Negligent Training and Supervision; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICAELA LEYVA VS. KAREN BACA AN INDIVIDUAL

of Premises 7) Violation of Unfair Competition Law 8) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 9) Nuisance 10) IIED 11) NIED SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiffs Miceala Leyva and Rafael Duran allege that they have resided in an illegally built structure located at 12223 Wick Street in Sun Valley, Unit B, since April 2012 to the present, pursuant to a written lease agreement with the former landlord.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LEE V. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

Code, § 1102.5); (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress. None of these causes of action are for sexual harassment or felonious criminal conduct. Plaintiff appears to recognize that she did not label any claims as ones for sexual harassment or felonious criminal conduct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

STEPHANIE SHIN VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.

.; (6) Negligence; (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Violation of California Civil Code § 1950.5 (Wrongful Retention of Security Deposit); and (10) Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business Practices). Finally, Plaintiff seeks to amend the prayer for damages to conform to the new causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SEAN ROSS PAUL VS TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH ET AL

of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREWS V. HESS

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress [“IIED”] (Third Cause of Action) The elements of an IIED claim are: “(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DAVID ALOMATSI VS MACLAY HEALTHCARE, LLC

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order striking portions of the Second Amended Complaint relating to punitive and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. RULING: The hearing will be continued. The proofs of service attached to the demurrer and motion to strike indicate that they were served by mail on 3/6/20 on Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s former address: P.O. Box 1303, Gardena, CA 90249.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FABRICIO BUSTO ROMERO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Fabirico Busto Romero (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and violation of Civil Code section 3340 against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on May 10, 2017. On October 16, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 4, 2019 alleging the same two causes of action, but adding Gabi Hartel as a defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2. Sexual Battery (CC 1708.5) 3. Sexual Assault 4. Gender Violence (CC 52.4) 5. Negligence 6. Negligent Supervision 7. Negligent Hiring/Retention 8. Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate 9. Public Entity’s Liability Based on the Torts of Government Employees (Gov’t Code 815.2) RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LILIA RIOS, ET AL. VS EDGAR G. VILLAMARIN

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on March 26, 2019, alleging four causes of action sounding in: (1) Sexual Battery by Lilia against Defendant; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Lilia against Defendant; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Eduardo against Defendant; and (4) Negligence by Lilia against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JANE BETTS VS PAULA KANE

Defendant demurs to the tenth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action against Defendant because Plaintiff does not allege any extreme or outrageous conduct or the requisite emotional distress. (CCP § 430.10(e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 329     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.