What is a false light?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – False Light

Recent Rulings on Privacy – False Light

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

App. 5th 1300, 1312 (citation omitted). “’False light is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed.’

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LAKE LINDERO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS CAROLINE FERADAY

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, Lake Lindero Homeowners Association (the HOA) and Christopher Barone (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Caroline Feraday (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) defamation; (3) false light; (4) interference with quiet enjoyment; (5) tortious interference; and (6) breach of contract. The HOA has since dismissed its claims against Defendant and is no longer a party to this action.

  • Hearing

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

He must make a similar showing as to his false light invasion of privacy claims. (Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, n. 16 [explaining that a false light claim “is in substance equivalent to the [plaintiff's] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim on all aspects”].) Here, Plaintiff has made the required limited showing.

  • Hearing

GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS

False Light Plaintiff’s false light count appears to be nothing more than a re-captioning of his defamation count. It relies on exactly the same alleged communications, which (if made and if false) would be directly defamatory. The false-light tort, by contrast, is intended to reach statements that are not defamatory on their face (and may indeed be literally true), but that without context or explanation may cast a false light on the target.

  • Hearing

SUPERIOR COURT VS. BHUPINDAR BOB SINGH DHILLON

Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint against defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) Defamation – Libel [against all defendants]; (2) Defamation – Libel Per Se [against all defendants]; (3) False Light [against all defendants]; (4) Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations [by plaintiff Chahal against all defendants]; and (5) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations [by Plaintiffs against all defendants].

  • Hearing

MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s complaint includes four causes of action, for (1) defamation – libel, (2) defamation – libel per se, (3) false light, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that he is an imam, and past visitor at the California Men’s Colony (CMC) prison facility in San Luis Obispo County. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have conspired to label him as an “ex-convict” in order to prevent his visits with various inmates at CMC.

  • Hearing

MARO BURUNSUZYAN VS DIMITRI ROGER

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy/Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Appropriation of Personal Information for Use in a False Light; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Negligence. On March 4, 2020, the Court granted Judgment Creditor’s request for entry of default judgment in the total amount of $601,235.15 against Judgment Debtor.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ISHMAEL TEMPLE VS DELL BECKHAM JR ET AL

Puryear, Parveen Haque Sikder, David Davillier, and Does 1- 50 for: (1) negligence; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligent hiring, supervision/retention of employee; (7) tortious interference with business relations; (8) defamation; and (9) false light. On July 18, 2018, Defendants filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the eighth and ninth causes of action in the FAC.

  • Hearing

LAMPLEY V. A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS, INC.

False light is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed. [Citation.]” (Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.)

  • Hearing

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

Issue No. 1: “Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication as to the Eighth Cause of Action for False Light alleged in the TAC.” Defendants argue that the eighth cause of action for false light must fail because (1) their statements are true and nonactionable opinion or hyperbole; (2) no defamatory meaning attached to the statements; (3) the statements are protected by common interest privilege; and (4) Defendants did not act with actual malice. Chyna concedes this issue in her opposition.

  • Hearing

PADRON V. BELTRAN

It appears plaintiffs are alleging that they were placed publicly in a false light. This tort bears a strong resemblance to the tort of defamation, and is often stated along with a defamation claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

TULLY VS CHOUINARD

The main claim here is one for defamation (cause of action one) and the related claim of false light (cause of action two). These claims are based on defendant’s Twitter posts. “The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.)” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.)

  • Hearing

LAKE LINDERO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS CAROLINE FERADAY

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, Lake Lindero Homeowners Association (the HOA) and Christopher Barone (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Caroline Feraday (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) defamation; (3) false light; (4) interference with quiet enjoyment; (5) tortious interference; and (6) breach of contract. The HOA has since dismissed its claims against Defendant and is no longer a party to this action.

  • Hearing

CHRISTIAN FUHRER, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

“When a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.” (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264, as modified (Apr. 19, 2017) [quoting Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1385, fn. 13].).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAKE LINDERO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION , ET AL. VS HARRIET COHEN

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, Lake Lindero Homeowners Association (HOA) and Christopher Barone (Barone) filed a complaint against Harriet Cohen (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) defamation; (3) false light; (4) interference with quiet enjoyment; (5) tortious interference; and (6) breach of contract. The HOA dismissed its claims against Defendant on January 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

GIOVANNI NAVARRO VS AUTO COLLISION GROUP, INC., ET AL.

Demurrer on ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. 3rd CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT: “False light is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed.” (Jackson, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1264, internal citation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

., (11) harassment in violation of FEHA, (12) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (13) violation of the Fair Pay Act, and (14) invasion of privacy, false light. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. In September 2016, AADA hired Plaintiff as a Student Accounts Manager reporting to Rezkallah, AADA’s Director of Business Affairs. Plaintiff’s work included executing AADA’s Financial Aid Packaging Process for AADA’s classes of students.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAMONE DANIEL, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

light; (14) discrimination, Civil Code, §§51.2, 52(a); (15) mental anguish; (16) violation of Civil Code, §51.7 Ralph Act; (17) aiding and abetting; (18) battery; (19) assault; (20) civil harassment, Civil Code, §527.6; (21) Conspiracy, CACI No. 3600; (22) unlawful removal of child from parent custody without a warrant 3051; (23) defamation per se, Civil Code, §46(3)(5); (24) Bane Act violation, Civil Code, §52.1; (25) malicious prosecution; (26) gross negligence: (27) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

Issue No. 1: “Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication as to the Eighth Cause of Action for False Light alleged in the TAC.” Defendants argue that the eighth cause of action for false light must fail because (1) their statements are true and nonactionable opinion or hyperbole; (2) no defamatory meaning attached to the statements; (3) the statements are protected by common interest privilege; and (4) Defendants did not act with actual malice. Chyna concedes this issue in her opposition.

  • Hearing

GMP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. V. METAFORMULA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Nor does GMP argue that it is prejudiced by the allegations or that they put it in a false light. Compare Warner v. Warner (1955) 135 Cal. App. 2d 302 (finding declaration attacking reputation and character of opposing counsel, which was scurrilous and “wholly unnecessary” to defendant’s proof in case, properly sealed). And while conclusory allegations standing alone may stricken, conclusory allegations will not be stricken where they are supported by other, factual allegations in the complaint. Perkins v.

  • Hearing

LAKE LINDERO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS CAROLINE FERADAY

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, Lake Lindero Homeowners Association (the HOA) and Christopher Barone (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Caroline Feraday (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) defamation; (3) false light; (4) interference with quiet enjoyment; (5) tortious interference; and (6) breach of contract. The HOA has since dismissed its claims against Defendant and is no longer a party to this action.

  • Hearing

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

In the proposed FAC, Plaintiff seeks to add four causes of action: (1) harassment based on gender in violation of FEHA, (2) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) violation of the Fair Pay Act, and (4) invasion of privacy / false light. The critical issue in a motion for leave to amend is determining whether an amendment would cause the opposing party to suffer prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RICHARD OWENS VS TYRINA LEE, ET AL.

Plaintiff resided on the floor above LEE’s condo, and they didn’t get along (each accuses the other of harassment) 7/25/18: Plaintiff and LEE were involved in an altercation, the details of which are unclear. 5/7/19: Plaintiff filed his complaint, asserting 12 C/As including violation of the Ralphs Act [CC 51.7], violation of the Bane Act [CC 52.1], IIED, NIED, defamation, false light, nuisance, br/CC&Rs (v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUHAD SHALHOUB, ET AL. VS SLIM REKHIS, ET AL.

Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. [¶] 4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.” (Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813, 819 [quoting Prosser, Privacy (1960) 48 Cal.L.Rev. 383, 389].) Rekhis demurs to the 3rd cause of action, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claim is based on their paranoia or exaggerated self-importance, and that the Police Department found Plaintiffs’ claims to be frivolous. (Dem. at p.16.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action against Defendant Mariana Crevoiserat (“Mariana”), alleging causes of action for libel per se, slander per se, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), libel, slander, and invasion of privacy.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.