Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in California

The demurrer is sustained with 14 days leave to amend for Plaintiffs to plead, if possible, facts that would support an IIED cause of action. The demurrer to the NIED cause of action is sustained because there is no separate tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. See Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1065, 1072.

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 There is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. ( Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 818.) [The] negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence &. ( Marllene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588.)

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.

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.

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.

PHOENIX’s demurrer to the PERKINS / TERRY Complaint, cause of action ten, negligent infliction of emotional distress, is sustained with leave to amend. PHOENIX’s demurrer to the HUFF Complaint, cause of action one, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and cause of action two, intentional infliction of emotional distress are overruled.

PHOENIX’s demurrer to the PERKINS / TERRY Complaint, cause of action ten, negligent infliction of emotional distress, is sustained with leave to amend. PHOENIX’s demurrer to the HUFF Complaint, cause of action one, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and cause of action two, intentional infliction of emotional distress are overruled.

PHOENIX’s demurrer to the PERKINS / TERRY Complaint, cause of action ten, negligent infliction of emotional distress, is sustained with leave to amend. PHOENIX’s demurrer to the HUFF Complaint, cause of action one, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and cause of action two, intentional infliction of emotional distress are overruled.

(“PHOENIX”) demurs to the PERKINS Complaint’s cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, cause of action ten.

(“PHOENIX”) demurs to the PERKINS Complaint’s cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, cause of action ten.

PHOENIX’s demurrer to the PERKINS / TERRY Complaint, cause of action ten, negligent infliction of emotional distress, is sustained with leave to amend. PHOENIX’s demurrer to the HUFF Complaint, cause of action one, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and cause of action two, intentional infliction of emotional distress are overruled.

(“PHOENIX”) demurs to the PERKINS Complaint’s cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, cause of action ten.

(“PHOENIX”) demurs to the PERKINS Complaint’s cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, cause of action ten.

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.

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.

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.

Discussion NIED Defendant demurs to the cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to maintain this cause of action under bystander or direct theory. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) is merely a cause of action for negligence and is not a separate tort or cause of action. ( Molen v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 928.)

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 January 13, 2023, Defendants Christopher G. Weston and Western Law Connection Corp. filed a demurrer and a motion to strike. The motions were filed by Christopher G.

1.DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 2.MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS 3.MOTION TO STRIKE Demurrer to FAC Defendants Marriott International Inc., Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corp., and Jay Claxton demur to the first 4 causes of action in the First Amended Complaint filed on 8/23/17 by Plaintiff Gregory Burke. . 1st COA: IIED Sustained with leave to amend. 2nd COA: NIED Sustained with leave to amend. The cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort.

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.

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.”

CoA 4: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress California recognizes two theories under which a plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"). As explained in Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072, NIED is not an independent tort but a form of negligence, requiring the traditional elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. In addition, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the existence of serious emotional distress as an element of damages.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.”)

Fourth Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Alessi demurs to the NIED cause of action on the grounds that it is duplicative of the other negligence claims and because NIED is not an independent tort, but rather a part of the professional negligence claim. The opposition argues that the complaint sufficiently alleges NIED as a cause of action.

Thus, Kaiya is alleging both negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) as the first two causes of actions on her Complaint. However, as Moving Defendant noted, negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence to which the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. ( Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1165.)

abuse; (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED); and (9) declaratory relief.

Discussion NIED California law recognizes negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) not as an independent tort but as a form of negligence, and recovery is permitted only in limited circumstances. There are two categories of NIED claims: bystander claims and direct victim claims. ( Spates v. Dameron Hosp. Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213.)

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.

NIED 3. Wrongful Death 4. Loss of Consortium 5. Medical Malpractice Survival Action 2 nd CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: The elements 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. ( Bogard v. Employers Casualty Co.

Third Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) claim fails because it is not an independent tort. Defendant is correct that California courts have repeatedly recognized that NIED is not an independent tort, but the tort of negligence such that the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. ( Spates v.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) 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. Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Spates v. Dameron Hosp. Assn.

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”).

As to whether Madatyan has stated a claim, Sophy contends that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not a valid cause of action. California courts have repeatedly recognized that negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is not an independent tort, but the tort of negligence such that the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages apply. (See, e.g., Spates v. Dameron Hospital Association (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213; Marlene F. v.

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.

(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.

As to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) NIED is a form of negligence. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.) The elements of NIED are: (1) legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such duty: (3) damages and injury; (4) cause of the resulting damage or injury. (Huggins v. Longs Drug Store (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129.)

As to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) NIED is a form of negligence. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.) The elements of NIED are: (1) legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such duty: (3) damages and injury; (4) cause of the resulting damage or injury. (Huggins v. Longs Drug Store (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129.)

As to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) NIED is a form of negligence. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.) The elements of NIED are: (1) legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such duty: (3) damages and injury; (4) cause of the resulting damage or injury. (Huggins v. Longs Drug Store (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129.)

These allegations are sufficient to plead a claim for IIED. Defendants do not contend that the allegations are insufficient to support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"). Defendants argue that plaintiff should plead NIED and IIED separately. A demurrer for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied. Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.

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.

Moayyad Abulashin, Islamic Center of San Gabriel Valley , Case No. 20STCV46477 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE [FN] Defendants Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude Reference to or the Introduction of Evidence of Plaintiffs Claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendant moves to preclude reference to or the introduction of evidence of Plaintiffs claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) on the basis that NIED is not recognized as an independent tort under California

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.

; and (12) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED).

, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

; and (14) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Defendants argue the court previously sustained Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs negligent infliction of emotional distress claim but because Plaintiffs could not allege any special relationship, she has changed her claim to her previously abandoned intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the IIED claim still fails because there are no allegations of a special relationship or Defendants engaging in outrageous conduct.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (5 th Cause of Action) Defendant argues the NIED claim is derivative of Plaintiffs second cause of action for negligence. The court agrees. Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is not an independent cause of action.¿ The tort of negligence and the traditional elements of negligence must be alleged - i.e. duty, breach, causation and damages.¿ ( Zavala v. Arche (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 928.)

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED) 4. False IMPRISONMENT On February 19, 2025, SGS filed a demurrer and motion to strike (MTS). That same day, the Insurance Company filed a similar demurrer and MTS. (Both Defendants are represented by the same attorney, T. JOHN ARBUCCI.) On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed the Insurance Company only.

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.

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.

After this court sustained a demurrer to the third cause of action of plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), plaintiffs filed the operative pleading in this case, their second amended complaint (SAC).

The court therefore elects to allow Plaintiff a further opportunity to establish a tether between FEHA disability discrimination and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim only. The court however finds NO support for the negligent infliction of emotional distress exemption in any presented authority. The scope of any potential exemption arises from the outrageous elements of intentional distress, which is noticeably not required for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

(NIED) ( id. ¶¶ 175181 ), and the twelfth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) ( id. ¶¶ 182188 ).

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.

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.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED) 4. False IMPRISONMENT On February 19, 2025, SGS filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike (MTS). That same day, the Insurance Company filed a similar demurrer and MTS. (Both Defendants are represented by the same attorney, T. JOHN ARBUCCI.) On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition to SGS demurrer and MTS. On March 18, 2025, SGS filed its replies.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED) 4. False IMPRISONMENT On February 19, 2025, SGS filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike (MTS). That same day, the Insurance Company filed a similar demurrer and MTS. (Both Defendants are represented by the same attorney, T. JOHN ARBUCCI.) On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition to SGS demurrer and MTS. On March 18, 2025, SGS filed its replies.

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.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Second Cause of Action) Defendant argues Plaintiffs cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim since Defendant does not owe Plaintiff a duty to notify Plaintiff of Estradas death. The court sustains the demurrer as to this cause of action because Plaintiff failed to plead all required elements.

The demurrer placed into issue the first cause of action (COA) for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the second COA for breach of contract, the third COA for negligence, and the fourth COA for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).

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 facts do not support defendants acted with the intent to harm or with reckless indifference; therefore, the 4AC fails to state a claim for IIED. Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support bystander liability or a special relationship to support a claim for NIED. This case is distinguishable from Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83, cited by defendants.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED) 4. False IMPRISONMENT On February 19, 2025, SGS filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike (MTS). That same day, the Insurance Company filed a similar demurrer and MTS. (Both Defendants are represented by the same attorney, T. JOHN ARBUCCI.) On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition to SGS demurrer and MTS. On March 18, 2025, SGS filed its replies.

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.