Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
False light requires publicity. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 904.
Publicity that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye is an actionable invasion of privacy, if the false light is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238-39.
“[A] false light action is in substance equivalent to a defamation [and libel] suit. A plaintiff alleging false light, therefore, must also satisfy the requirements of malice.” Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 880, 893; Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264.
Thus, a Plaintiff must demonstrate:
CACI 1802.
False light requires publicity. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 904. Publicity, under this tort, requires publication to “the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge....” Id.
“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 v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264. A false light claim is substantively equivalent to a libel claim and should meet the same requirements of libel, including proof of malice. Id.
“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.” Eisenberg v Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, fn. 13.
“In making the distinction between provably false factual assertions and nonactionable opinion, the courts have defined as opinion any ‘broad, unfocused and wholly subjective comment.’” Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829, 837. Under the common law privilege of fair comment, an honest expression of opinion on matters of public interest is privileged. Williams v. Daily Review, Inc. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 405, 416.
In Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 149, where plaintiffs’ false light claim was based on the use of their names, the couple’s likeness, and private details for a television plot lines for upcoming shows. The plaintiffs filed a “complaint for defamation/defamation per se and false light invasion of privacy against defendants arising from defendants' alleged 'intentional and reckless conduct with respect to the writing and dissemination of a screenplay.'” Id.at 139.
After concluding that “because they cannot show that a reasonable person would have understood that the defamatory statements referred to them....” the court held that, “[p]laintiffs’ false light invasion of privacy cause of action fails for the same reasons.” See Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 (false light claim “is in substance equivalent to the [plaintiffs] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim on all aspects.”); Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 34 (the collapse of the defamation claim spells the demise of all other causes of action in the same complaint which allegedly arise from the same publication).
Plaintiff’s claim for false light fails for the same reasons set forth above. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim for false light is duplicative of the claim for defamation.
21-CLJ-02372
Nov 21, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
Plaintiff’s claim for false light fails for the same reasons set forth above. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim for false light is duplicative of the claim for defamation.
21-CLJ-02372
Nov 28, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
As to the fourth cause of action: Publicity that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye is an actionable invasion of privacy, if the false light is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238-39. “[A] false light action is in substance equivalent to a defamation suit. A plaintiff alleging false light, therefore, must also satisfy the requirements of malice.” Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 880, 893.
GALLEGOS VS INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY
RIC1715690
Jan 30, 2018
Riverside County, CA
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.
GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS
MSC20-00710
Oct 30, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.)
GIOVANNI NAVARRO VS AUTO COLLISION GROUP, INC., ET AL.
19NWCV00836
Sep 29, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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 v. Mayweather , 10 Cal. App. 5th 1240, 1264 (internal quotation omitted).
YOLANDA CASSIDY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.
23STCV15718
Apr 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action for defamation and for false light incorporate the same facts. No new or additional facts are alleged in the false light cause of action. "When an action for libel is alleged, a false-light claim based on the same facts (as in this case) is superfluous and should be dismissed. (See Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 [81 Cal.Rptr. 360, 459 P. 2d 912]; Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1136 [212 Cal.Rptr. 838].)."
WALDERS VS SAKELL
37-2018-00015979-CU-DF-CTL
Jul 19, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to establish a prima facia case for false light and negligence. B. Second Prong – Teresa’s Burden a. False Light Cause of Action The claim of “false light,” is a one of four forms of privacy invasion: (1) intrusion upon one's physical solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) false light in the public eye; and (4) appropriation. ( Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16.)
TERESA ROBERTS VS SONA PATEL, ET AL.
21STCV02690
May 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the ninth cause of action for invasion of privacy (false light), there is nothing uncertain about the captioning of this claim because false light is one of the four recognized types of tortious invasion of privacy. (See Fellows v. Nat'l Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238.) Additionally, even if the claim were improperly captioned, the mis-captioning of a claim is not a ground for demurrer. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.)
MEHRAN FORUTAN VS. RAHIM BIDGOLI
56-2009-00338918-CU-BC-SIM
Aug 07, 2009
Ventura County, CA
As to false light Plaintiff’s cause of action is deficient as she has alleged no facts to support a cause of action for either slander per se or slander. As to infliction of emotional distress Plaintiff alleges the elements of a cause of action for infliction of emotional distress but no facts to support such a cause of action. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.
MALAYA KEYS VS. FIVE RIVER HOSPITALITY LLC
C23-02409
Feb 02, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869 did not specifically address the statute of limitations and involved traditional libel action and false light claims based upon an article containing false information. While Plaintiff in this case purported to assert a claim for false light, as noted below and argued by Defendant, the complaint does not actually allege a false light cause of action.
MONTIA SABBAG VS KEVIN HART, ET AL.
20STCV16533
Jan 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The statutory and common law restrictions on defamation claims for malice and special damages requirements also apply to false light privacy claims. (Fellows, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 239.) Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific statement made by Defendant that could be considered defamatory or that paints her in a false light. The Complaint alleges generally that Defendant published false statements in a chat application that “discriminated” Plaintiff and humiliated her in front of the entire company.
YOUNG JIN CHOE VS YOUNG IN KIM
BC713701
Nov 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
“False light is a subspecies 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.” Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No.3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.
WEBSTER VS COLLIE
MCC1801448
Jul 16, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Second 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 v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264, citing Price v.
CRUZ V. CASA DE ROSAS APARTMENTS
16CECG02567
Jul 18, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
False light (3rd cause of action) False light is a subspecies 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.” (Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No.3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.)
MATAR VS TWAL
RIC2003635
Aug 23, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Lazo’s fourth cause of action is for invasion of privacy—portraying a person in 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.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “A ‘false light’ claim, like libel, exposes a person
ALEXANDER PLURAD LAZO VS MARINA DACUYCUY
20CV03803
May 14, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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. A false light claim, like libel, exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy and assumes the audience will recognize it as such.
JESSICA DE ROTHSCHILD, ET AL. VS DIANA LANDS, ET AL.
22STCV16977
Feb 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Second and third causes of action – defamation and false light Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action are for defamation and false light for alleged conduct for two categories of conduct that occurred on or about March 15, 2019 and after this date: 37.
GIOVANNI NAVARRO VS AUTO COLLISION GROUP, INC., ET AL.
19NWCV00836
Jul 30, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff effectively acknowledges that his claims for false light and defamation as now alleged are inadequately pled and barred by the litigation privilege. Plaintiff is given leave to allege cognizable claims for defamation and false light that are not barred by the litigation privilege if he can do so in good faith.
J. WAYNE JOHNSON VS. BROADMOOR POLICE PROTECTION DISTRICT ET AL
CGC15547675
Jun 01, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
“’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.’ ‘A “false light” claim, like libel, exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy and assumes the audience will recognize it as such.’
KATHLEEN RUIZ VS MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY
YC073179
Mar 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
“A false light claim, like libel, exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy and assumes the audience will recognize it as such. A false light cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].” (Id. at p. 616.)
BUTLAND VS. B & C PROPERTIES
30-2018-01017927-CU-PO-CJC
Jan 09, 2019
Orange County, CA
The seventh cause of action for false light is duplicative of the defamation cause of action. (Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1385: 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.].) Plaintiff also failed to articulate how the corporation can be offended.
TSUNAMI VR INC VS KARP
37-2018-00026332-CU-DF-CTL
May 09, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Newton makes various allegations regarding Instagram posts made by Jenner which indicate that Jenner has knowledge of his private facts and casts him in a false light. (Compl. at p. 2.) procedural history Newton filed the Complaint on July 14, 2020, alleging four causes of action: Invasion of privacy False light Public disclosure of private facts Punitive Damages On March 5, 2021, this Court granted Jenner’s Motion to Quash Service. On March 5, 2021, Jenner filed an Answer.
CHARLES D NEWTON VS KYLIE K JENNER
20STCV26396
Apr 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Newton makes various allegations regarding Instagram posts made by Jenner which indicate that Jenner has knowledge of his private facts and casts him in a false light. (Compl. at p. 2.) procedural history Newton filed the Complaint on July 14, 2020, alleging four causes of action: Invasion of privacy False light Public disclosure of private facts Punitive Damages On March 5, 2021, this Court granted Jenner’s Motion to Quash Service. On March 5, 2021, Jenner filed an Answer.
CHARLES D NEWTON VS KYLIE K JENNER
20STCV26396
Apr 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Newton makes various allegations regarding Instagram posts made by Jenner which indicate that Jenner has knowledge of his private facts and casts him in a false light. (Compl. at p. 2.) procedural history Newton filed the Complaint on July 14, 2020, alleging four causes of action: Invasion of privacy False light Public disclosure of private facts Punitive Damages On March 5, 2021, this Court granted Jenner’s Motion to Quash Service. On March 5, 2021, Jenner filed an Answer.
CHARLES D NEWTON VS KYLIE K JENNER
20STCV26396
Apr 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Conduct de novo review of $50 small claims J on "false light"/trade libel case alleging damages from unnecessary audit. gmr
GREEN PHARMACEUTICALS VS. SEAN THORNHILL
56-2009-00341391-SC-SC-VTA
Aug 03, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Other
Small Claims
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 . [Citation].
AHARON DIHNO, ET AL. VS NETFLIX, INC., ET AL.
23STCV06215
Nov 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff seeks to add claims for negligence per se and defamation/ false light. Negligence per se is not a cause of action, but a doctrine that creates a presumption of negligence. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285.) In the last demurrer, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend her negligence claim.
MARION TRENTMAN-MORELLI VS CAR
MSC20-02087
Aug 11, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Seventh Cause of Action (False Light). The Court notes that, under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff’s false light claim differs from Plaintiff’s libel claim, in that false light does not require that the defamatory statement have been made in writing, whereas libel does.
ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL
BC680035
Jan 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Scaccia’s first cause of action for false light is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Mr. Scaccia fails to allege which information defendants publicized to show plaintiff in a false light. (FAC, ¶¶ 298-300, and 304-305.) Defendants’ demurrer to Mr.
SCACCIA V. SCACCIA
CVCV14-1820
Aug 13, 2015
Yolo County, CA
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.’
MICHAEL DYBERG VS LAURA GEHLEY, ET AL.
19TRCV01050
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEFENDANT RICHARD N GOLDMAN, DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT RE DEFAMATION SUSTAIN WITH LEAVE TO AMEND TO PLEAD SPECIFIC FACT, RE DISCOVERY AND PUBLICATION RE FALSE LIGHT-SUSTAIN WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.(302/DG/PB)
HEBREW ACADEMY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. RICHARD N GOLDMAN ET AL
CGC02414796
Feb 18, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
“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.” (Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.)
KARIM VS THE HIGHLANDER UNIVERSITY
RIC1902794
Oct 03, 2019
Riverside County, CA
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.” (Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970 [125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220].)
ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL
BC680035
Oct 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
For example, Ho alleges in support of the false light cause of action that “Defendants acted with ill will towards Plaintiff in that they knew that the publication of such a fabricated advertisement would cause Plaintiff humiliation, mortification, and extreme emotional distress.” (FAC, ¶ 44.)
CHI HUNG HO VS DR ROBERT LIN
BC689872
Dec 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Notably, although not addressed by the parties, it is possible for the public disclosure of a false fact to constitute a cause of action for false light, as opposed to a cause of action for public disclosure of private fact. Leave to amend is granted to allow Plaintiff to allege facts to support a cause of action for public disclosure of private fact by Fowler, or to allege facts to support a cause of action for false light against Fowler.
TERRI BITTENSON VS. MARK BITTENSON
56-2015-00475085-CU-PO-VTA
May 23, 2018
Ventura County, CA
DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT DEFENDANT VISTO CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT OVERRULE DEMURRER AS TO 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT, 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION EAVESDROPPING, 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION INVASION OF PRIVACY, 7TH CAUSE OF ACTION VOICE PRINT, AND 8TH CAUSE OF ACTION VOICE PRINT. 9TH CAUSE OF ACTION EXTORTION SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (302/JJM/RS)
MARSHALL BAUER VS. VISTO CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL
CGC02405672
Oct 10, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
A “False Light” claim when coupled with a defamation claim is “essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.” Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1359. As the Defamation cause of action fell, supra, so too does the False Light cause of action.
KIEU HOANG VS NGUOI VIET NEWS, INC.
30-2018-01019386-CU-NP-CJC
Jan 04, 2018
Orange County, CA
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 v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264, quoting Price v.
CRAIG GORE VS ANDREW JANDA
21STCV19736
Sep 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CV64401
Feb 10, 2023
Tuolumne County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: Defendant also demurs to the fourth cause of action for “false light.”
TRANQUILITY PISTACHIO, LLC VS. SUSAN KILSDONK
19CECG02385
Jan 06, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Fifth 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. ( De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 865.)
YVETTE HITCHENS VS WINDWARD VILLAGE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ET AL.
22LBCV00036
Apr 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Because the defamation claim fails, so too does the false light claim. b.
QUAKE GLOBAL INC VS WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES LLC
37-2022-00001487-CU-BT-CTL
Sep 21, 2023
San Diego County, CA
The Demurrer filed by Defendants Cedar Sinai Medical Center, Anna Solt, MD and Sibobhan Ford, LCSW to the 1st Cause of Action (Malpractice) and the 2nd Cause of Action (Civil False Light) is sustained without leave to amend; the Demurrer to the remaining claims is sustained with leave to amend.As to the 1st Cause of Action, the claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.As to the 2nd Cause of Action, the claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.The alleged incident took place in May
YAGO BLU (J) (S) VS CEDAR SINAI MEDICAL CENTER(S), ET AL.,
SC127581
Aug 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The demurrer to the first cause of action for defamation, second cause of action for false light and sixth cause of action for violation of California Penal Code § 502 is overruled. Those causes of action allege sufficient facts to state the claims pled. The demurrer to the seventh cause of action for trespass is sustained with leave to amend. The SAC does not adequately allege Plaintiff's possession of property. The demurrer by the individual Defendants is overruled.
BORO VS SLATER
37-2019-00038667-CU-DF-CTL
Aug 20, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
In addition, Plaintiff alleges False Light Invasion of Privacy and Violation of the Brown Act. “When a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially super¿uous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.” (Eisenberg v. Almeda Newspapers Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359,1385).
KERRIN TSO VS DAVID GREENE ET AL
BC690298
Aug 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraudulent transfer, (2) equitable subrogation, (3) declaratory relief, (4) defamation, (5) false light invasion of privacy, (6) civil extortion, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the second amended cross-complaint, Rhee and Kim allege that Koo fraudulently induced Rhee into entering a stipulated judgment in the Underlying Action.
BENNETT KOO VS JAI JUNE RHEE ET AL
BC580540
Feb 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants also argue that a corporate entity (like Thomas Partners) has no privacy interest to be offended by false light. (Demurrer at p. 19.) “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 v.
THOMAS PARTNERS STRATEGIES, A CALIFORNIA LLC, ET AL. VS ROBERT BENJAMIN BUZZ PATTERSON, ET AL.
20STCV07276
Aug 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Sixth Cause of Action - Invasion of Privacy With respect to the third cause of action for false light, such a cause of action "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." (Price v.
VERONICA HURTADO VS. IRENE RODRIGUEZ
MSC20-01330
Mar 27, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
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. ( De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 865.)
MARCELA NEWELL VS UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
21STCV03320
Apr 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s cause of action for Trade Libel would therefore fail. 3) False Light For false light to “be actionable, the false light in which the plaintiff is placed must be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Although it is not necessary that the plaintiff be defamed, publicity placing one in a highly offensive false light will in most cases be defamatory as well.” [Emphasis added.] Fellows v. National Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238–239.
SAREEN INCORPORATED VS. VEGA
30-2018-00997742-CU-DF-CJC
Sep 28, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.’
TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.
20TRCV00501
Nov 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
False Light False light requires publicity. (Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 904.) Publicity, under this tort, requires publication to “’the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. BENEDICTO VASQUEZ
TC029148
Aug 28, 2018
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
D. 7th cause of action for False Light Both Defendants move for summary adjudication on the false light cause of action. “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.]
RORY OLSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CA., INC.
EC066554
Oct 12, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Prong 2 – Plaintiff’s Shifted Burden The burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the probability of prevailing on her false light and IIED claims. “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 v.
ALICE JUNE DAVIDSON VS ANDREA LIN, ET AL.
19BBCV00330
Sep 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Seventh (False Light): SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. "When an action for libel is alleged, a false-light claim based on the same facts?is superfluous and should be dismissed." (McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 961, 965.) Eighth (Defamation): OVERRULED; sufficient facts are pled. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored; "ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures." (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)
JASON MERTZ-PRICKETT VS. CHRISTOPHER BRUNO ET AL
CGC17560907
Jan 19, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Sustain with leave to amend the demurrer filed by Defendant Vail as to the defamation, false light, and IIED claims based upon the one year statute of limitations applicable to each cause of action. Overrule as to Computer Fraud and Abuse Act cause of action as the alleged conduct occurred as late as August 2012 which is within the applicable two year statute of limitations.
ANDRZEJ V BROZYNA VS. GEORGE MICHAEL VAIL
56-2014-00450965-CU-DF-VTA
Jul 02, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Defendant fails to cite any authority applying a public interest defense to a sufficiently pled and substantiated claim for false light or invasion of privacy by false light. A false light cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim. See Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of the false light claim based on public interest is DENIED. II.
GORDON KLEIN VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
21SMCV01577
Apr 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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. ( Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970 (quotation and citation omitted).)
TAHA ABOU-RAMADAN VS JAMES R. BETTIS
20STCV22643
Nov 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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. ( De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 865.)
EDWIN NOVEL JEWELRY DESIGN, INC. VS REDDIT, INC.
23STCV14893
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
False Light False light is a form of invasion of privacy. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 24.) “In order to be actionable, the false light in which the plaintiff is placed must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (Fellows v. National Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238.) It places the plaintiff in a false, but not necessarily defamatory position in the public. (Werner v. Times-Mirror Co.
VIDRO VS US NURSING CORPORATION
RIC1905564
Aug 04, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action for 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. [Citation.] ( Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264.)
SERAN NG, D.M.D, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS YANG LU
20STCV49246
Apr 19, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
FALSE LIGHT: The elements of a claim for Privacy Invasion False Light, differ from defamation, and are: False; unprivileged; publication by writing, printing, or other fixed representation; exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure person in his occupation; and malice as to public figures. Briscoe v.
GALEN MOGTADERI VS HAMID REZA MOGHTADERI
21STCV05407
Dec 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs' allegation of false accusations is not a cause of action but if attempting to allege defamation or false light, no specific facts are alleged to support each element of fraud. Further, there are no allegations regarding Divine Kaiser. Leave to amend is denied as plaintiffs have not informed the court how the complaint could be amended to state a cause of action.
MCWILLIAMS VS THE ROCK CHURCH
37-2019-00053827-CU-CR-CTL
Mar 12, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT Cross-Deft's (BOYAJIAN & CCSF) Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint - SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO indemnification; apportionment of fault; declaratory relief; conspiracy; interference with economic relationship; violation of B&P 17500; defamation; false light; right to privacy; interference with advantage UNDER GOV'T 821.6.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SF VS MCCOLM
CGC97985506
Dec 18, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
As to the seventh cause of action, Plaintiff assert the claim can be made into a claim for false light. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of defendant] publicized information or material that showed [name of plaintiff] in a false light; 2. That the false light created by the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]'s position; 3.
JORDANA BAUMAN VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA
37-2018-00028859-CU-OR-CTL
Oct 25, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraudulent transfer, (2) equitable subrogation, (3) declaratory relief, (4) defamation, (5) false light invasion of privacy, (6) civil extortion, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the second amended cross-complaint, Rhee and Kim allege that Koo fraudulently induced Rhee into entering a stipulated judgment in the Underlying Action.
BENNETT KOO VS JAI JUNE RHEE ET AL
BC580540
Mar 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for False Light Publicity “‘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 v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264.)
INSTITUTE OF IMAGINAL STUDIES VS. DOE 1
SCV-272228
Aug 09, 2023
Sonoma County, CA
Second Cause of Action for False Light Publicity “‘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 v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264.)
INSTITUTE OF IMAGINAL STUDIES VS. DOE 1
SCV-272228
Aug 16, 2023
Sonoma County, CA
Third Count for Invasion of Privacy False Light In 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the tort of false-light invasion of privacy and adopted Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 652E. ( Mangelluzzi v. Morley (Ohio Ct.
DR. MISHA MUTIZWA VS TWITTER, INC.
22STCP02593
Sep 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
False Light. Defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s “false light” cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. A sufficient cause of action for false light must plead that the plaintiff’s privacy was invaded by excessive publicity such that the plaintiff’s reputation was unduly and unjustifiably damaged. (Fellows v.
RENFRO V. PIXLEY MEDICAL CLINIC
VCU 272642
Apr 30, 2019
Tulare County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: False Light - Overruled One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. ( Daniel v.
AKOP ("JACK") TOROSIAN VS ELDA MADATYAN, ET AL.
22STCV27509
Apr 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: False Light - Overruled One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. ( Daniel v.
EDRAS CHAVARRIA, ET AL. VS ERICK BUCHTZITZIMIT, ET AL.
21STCV27509
Apr 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff Fransico Ferreras Rodriguez (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint for (1.) defamation per se, and (2.) false light (invasion of privacy). On June 14, 2023, Defendant Nolita Cinema (Defendant) moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Nolita Cinema because Nolita Cinema does not have sufficient minimum contacts with California.
FRANCISCO FERRERAS RODRIGUEZ VS NETFLIX, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV08993
Oct 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.” (Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970 [125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220].)
ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL
BC680035
May 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
False Light Defendant's argument against the false light cause of action is that it fails because the defamation cause of action fails, citing Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359. The Eisenberg court stated: "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. (Kapellas v.
EDUARDO LARIN VS. JANE DOE
37-2019-00024403-CU-DF-CTL
Jan 07, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
(collectively “Judgment-Creditors”) alleging defamation, false light, intentional interference with actual economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violations of Business & Professional Code §§ 17200, et seq. The instant case was initially filed in Department 14 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
DOV CHARNEY VS STANDARD GENERAL LP ET AL
BC581130
Mar 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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. A false light cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim . . . .
FRANK GOGOL VS MALISSA WHITE
21TRCV00597
Dec 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As such, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support the false light invasion of privacy and public disclosure of private facts claim. Thus, Plaintiff has not established his causes of action for defamation by libel, false light invasion of privacy, and public disclosure of private facts have minimal merit to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP.
ROBERT SANTISTEVEN VS ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES EDUCATION & WELFARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV02648
Mar 06, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264 [“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.”[1]] As the arguments for the second cause of action are the same as for the first cause of action, the demurrer to the second
VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC VS ANTONIO MANNING ET
BC654151
Apr 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 17, 2019, Plaintiffs Susan Hannaford and Marquessa Margolin commenced this action against Seven Satellite Pty Ltd, dba Seven Network Australia Inc., Bradley Gibson, Matt Doran, Andrea Keir, Kerry Stokes, Tim Worner, Verizon Communications dba Verizon Digital Media Services Inc., and Oath Inc., dba Oath Brands Inc. for (1) fraud; (2) violation of Penal Code section 473; (3) defamation; and (4) false light.
SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.
19STCV13245
Jun 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
· False Light: The claim is equivalent to libel. The complaint does not allege sufficient publicity, limiting it only to family members and members of a “close knit Persian American community. See, e.g., Cabanas v. Gloodt Assoc., 942 F. Supp. 1295, 1310-11 (E.D. Cal. 1996). · Motion: Plaintiff alleges punitive damages without alleging any facts to support a conclusion that Defendant Moghtaderi acted with fraud, oppression or malice.
GALEN MOGTADERI VS HAMID REZA MOGHTADERI
21STCV05407
Jun 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraudulent transfer, (2) equitable subrogation, (3) declaratory relief, (4) defamation, (5) false light invasion of privacy, (6) civil extortion, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the second amended cross-complaint, Rhee and Kim allege that Koo fraudulently induced Rhee into entering a stipulated judgment in the Underlying Action.
BENNETT KOO VS JAI JUNE RHEE ET AL
BC580540
Oct 05, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Nat’l Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 239 [in order to be actionable, the false light must be highly offensive to a reasonable person; may be defamatory as well].)
KAREN CIVIL VS JESSICA JUSTE
21STCV10594
Sep 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MARO BURUNSUZYAN VS DIMITRI ROGER
19STCV08621
Dec 31, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Invasion of Privacy Claim (Count Three) Neither Plaintiffs nor Cudia address the third cause of action for false light invasion of privacy. “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 v.
EDWARD RUSTAMZADEH, M.D., ET AL. V. JILL CUDIA
19CV351955
Jun 11, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Thirty days leave to amend the third cause of action for defamation/false light/slander of title and the seventh cause of action for IIED only, if possible.
ATHENA RIVERA VS JC PENNEY, ET AL.
19GDCV00762
May 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Third 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 v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal. App. 5th 1240, 1264.)
22STCV19747
Nov 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
However, I do not possess unique or superior personal knowledge of Plaintiffs defamation or false light claims. “7. Furthermore, I do not have personal knowledge of Plaintiffs claims regarding his communications with witness Jerry Harper.” (McDonnell Decl. at ¶¶6-7.) The Court finds this declaration somewhat conclusory. McDonnell states that he does not “possess unique or superior personal knowledge of Plaintiffs defamation or false light claims.”
JOHN DOE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC664140
Nov 01, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Second Cause of Action, False Light: DENIED “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. Conclusion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
PAUL HENREID VS RICHARD SKAGGS
19STCV20592
Feb 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The demurrer to the Fourteenth Cause of Action for Defamation/False Light is OVERRULED as moot. Plaintiff has withdrawn the words "and written" from paragraph 169 of the SAC, thus conceding that there is no claim for libel. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
BRIAN A. MCDOWELL VS. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ORTHOPEDIC CENTERS MEDICAL GROUP INC
34-2010-00070976-CU-OE-GDS
Jul 05, 2011
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for loss of employment and employment opportunity and damages resulting from false light is sustained without leave to amend. Such claims may be the basis for damages but not substantive causes of action. (See Hawthorne v. Siegel (1891) 88 Cal.159.) Defendant is directed to file and serve a Judgment of Dismissal. IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELEBYAY VS GRAJEK
37-2018-00034871-CU-NP-CTL
Jan 30, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
As to Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for False Light, Wells Fargo asserts the claim is preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court agrees. (See Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 545.) Further leave to amend is denied. As to Plaintiff's eighth cause of action for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Plaintiff asserts she adequately alleged a UCL claim on the basis of violation of Civil Code section 1785.25.
JORDANA BAUMAN VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA
37-2018-00028859-CU-OR-CTL
Aug 22, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
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.” (Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970 [125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220].)
JASON ANDERSON ET AL VS VINCENT KIRSINAS
BC668343
May 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s other two causes of action – the second, for alleged false light invasion of privacy and the third for alleged infliction of emotional distress – are based on the content at issue in his defamation claim and thus barred for the same reasons. (Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984)37 Cal. 3d 244, 265.) Once an article is found to be privileged or otherwise protected from defamation liability, “liability cannot be imposed on any theory.” (Id.
ANTHONY BLACK VS SANTA MARIA CALIFORNIA NEWS MEDIA INC ET AL
21CV02157
Dec 21, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Court dismisses the fifth cause of action for defamation and sixth cause of action for false light, without prejudice, based on plaintiffs’ stipulation. Plaintiffs, Casey Johnson and Amber Johnson to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of this order. First, Second, and Seventh COAs (Viol.
JOHNSON VS. BROWN FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LTD
30-2019-01072077
Jan 21, 2020
Orange County, CA
Nat’l Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 239 (holding that in order to be actionable, the false light must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.) In Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1385, fn. 13, the Court of Appeals ruled that “[w]hen 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.” (Eisenberg v.
ENRICH FINANCIAL, INC. VS AMIR PAZUKI SHARIF
19STLC02722
Dec 16, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff filed an action against defendants Google, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corp. asserting causes of action for defamation, defamation per se, promissory estoppel, and false light invasion of privacy related to website postings concerning plaintiff or businesses he is or has been associated with. The complaint does not pray for monetary damages.
DIMANNO V. GOOGLE, INC.
PC-20150469
Jul 27, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for defamation per se and false light. In Alonzo’s cross-complaint, Alonzo, in pro per, alleges that Mahvash, and other Cross-Defendants, battered and assaulted Alonzo because he was picketing the business and practices of the Business. In Neyaz Mazgani’s (“Neyaz”) cross-complaint, Neyaz alleges that Alonzo assaulted and stalked her. The action came on regularly for trial on May 7, 2018. On May 29, 2018, the Court signed a judgment on the jury verdict.
MAHVASH MAZAGANI VS HOUMAN MOGHADDAM ET AL
BC658766
Sep 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
LAMPLEY V. A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS, INC.
30-2019-01113268
Oct 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.