What is an intrusion into private affairs?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – Intrusion into Private Affairs

Recent Rulings on Privacy – Intrusion into Private Affairs

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Plaintiff must amend the complaint to allege facts which show his claims were presented within two years of occurrence; otherwise, Plaintiff’s claim for intrusion into private affairs must be dismissed. Thus, Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED, with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SAM ROTER VS JEFFREY TINSLEY, CEO MYLIFE INC.

To state a cause of action for intrusion into private affairs, the following elements must be alleged: 1) Description of physical area, plaintiff’s sensibility, privacy or private data plaintiff alleges was invaded by defendant; 2) Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy; 3) The invasion was in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person; 4) Lack of consent. Sanders v. American Broadcasting Corp. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

SEDRAK V. WILLIAMS, ET AL.

First Cause of Action for Intrusion into Private Affairs A claim for intrusion has two elements: “(1) intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter, (2) in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

J.K. VS. KAISER

.); Intrusion into Private Affairs; Negligence; and Defamation. Motion Pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. §§ 431.10, 435, and 436, Defendant John Muir Health moves to strike the following phrases and sentence: 1. The phrase, “punitive damages” at SAC, 5:9; 2. The phrase, “and punitive damages” at SAC, 6:5; 3. The sentence beginning at ¶ 35. “An officer, director or managing agent of Defendant JOHN MUIR and DOES 1-100 knew in advance…are liable for punitive damages.” SAC, 7:12-19.) 4.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

HAWK VS HULETT

In this case, Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action for (1) civil harassment, (2) civil stalking, (3) trespassing, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (6) intentional interference with contractual relations, (7) intentional inference with prospective economic relationship, (8) negligent interference with prospective economic relationship, (9) intrusion into private affairs, (10) wrongful use of administrative proceedings, and (11) assault.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

In this case, Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action for (1) civil harassment, (2) civil stalking, (3) trespassing, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (6) intentional interference with contractual relations, (7) intentional inference with prospective economic relationship, (8) negligent interference with prospective economic relationship, (9) intrusion into private affairs, (10) wrongful use of administrative proceedings, and (11) assault.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The demurrers to the second cause of action for civil stalking, third cause of action for trespassing, fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fifth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and ninth cause of action for intrusion into private affairs are overruled. "A demurrer on the ground of the bar of the statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred." Moseley v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

In this case, Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action for (1) civil harassment, (2) civil stalking, (3) trespassing, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (6) intentional interference with contractual relations, (7) intentional inference with prospective economic relationship, (8) negligent interference with prospective economic relationship, (9) intrusion into private affairs, (10) wrongful use of administrative proceedings, and (11) assault.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The demurrers to the second cause of action for civil stalking, third cause of action for trespassing, fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fifth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and ninth cause of action for intrusion into private affairs are overruled. "A demurrer on the ground of the bar of the statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred." Moseley v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The demurrers to the second cause of action for civil stalking, third cause of action for trespassing, fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fifth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and ninth cause of action for intrusion into private affairs are overruled. "A demurrer on the ground of the bar of the statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred." Moseley v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHAORONG HUANG , ET AL. VS DANIEL CHIU, ET AL.

.; (3) Intrusion Into Private Affairs; and (4) Imposition of a Constructive Trust. The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. CCP 473(a)(1). Amendments of pleadings can be permitted up to and during trial, absent prejudice to the adverse party. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. Judicial policy favors liberal exercise of the discretion to permit amendment of the pleadings. Nestle v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PLANNET CONSULTING VS. HOWARD

It encompasses unconsented-to physical intrusion into the home, hospital room or other place the privacy of which is legally recognized, as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying. (See Rest.2d Torts, § 652B, com. b., pp. 378–379, and illustrations.) Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 230–31.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

LEXUS ROGERS VS CC VENICE LLC

procedural history Rogers filed the Complaint on September 12, 2018, alleging ten causes of action: Violation of California Civil Code § 51 and 52, Unruh Act; Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, Bane Act; Violation of California Civil Code § 51.7, Ralph Act; Violation of Civil Code § 43; Intrusion into Private Affairs; Negligence; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Assault; Battery; False Imprisonment On December 7, 2018, this Court sustained CC’s demurrer to the Sixth Cause of

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §§ 630, et seq.) and (2) invasion of privacy – intrusion into private affairs. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. For the past 12 years, Plaintiff has been in the business of providing equipment financing and related services to companies seeking equipment leases. Plaintiff operates this business through two companies that he controls, MaxPro Leasing, LLC (“MaxPro”) and AKT Enterprises, LLC (“AKT”), and through a third company, Technijian, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALICE JUNE DAVIDSON VS ANDREA LIN, ET AL.

The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 7, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) trespass; (2) trespass – extra hazardous activities; (3) injunctive relief; (4) declaratory relief; (5) public nuisance; (6) private nuisance; (7) failure to abate artificial condition on land creating nuisance; (8) negligence; (9) invasion of privacy – intrusion into private affairs; (10) invasion of privacy – portraying a person in a false light; and (11) IIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAM ROTER VS JEFFREY TINSLEY, CEO MYLIFE INC.

Second Cause of Action—Invasion of Privacy To state a cause of action for intrusion into private affairs, the following elements must be alleged: 1) Description of physical area, plaintiff’s sensibility, privacy or private data plaintiff alleges was invaded by defendant; 2) Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy; 3) The invasion was in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person; 4) Lack of consent. Sanders v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

ALICE JUNE DAVIDSON VS ANDREA LIN, ET AL.

The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 7, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) trespass; (2) trespass – extra hazardous activities; (3) injunctive relief; (4) declaratory relief; (5) public nuisance; (6) private nuisance; (7) failure to abate artificial condition on land creating nuisance; (8) negligence; (9) invasion of privacy – intrusion into private affairs; (10) invasion of privacy – portraying a person in a false light; and (11) IIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MOSS JACOBS VS PERRY ADAM LIEBER

[FAC ¶7(d)] The causes of action in the FAC are 1) declaratory relief on contract, 2) quiet title (to the two percent interest), and 3) intrusion into private affairs (by installation of cameras). Motion: Defendants move to compel binding arbitration and stay the matter pending arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

SHREWSBURY VS ATKINSON/WALSH

The operative pleading is the second amended complaint, which contains the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (3) false imprisonment, (4) violation of right of privacy/intrusion into private affairs, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) liability for retained control of independent contractor, and (7) peculiar risk liability.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

GROSS VS. GROSS

With respect to the first cause of action for intrusion into private affairs (Issue No. 1) and second cause of action for recording of confidential information (Issue No. 2), plaintiffs have successfully objected to the portions of the declaration of Anthony Roman (hereinafter, the Roman declaration) that purportedly establish the key material facts listed in defendants’ separate statement as Nos. 8-10, and none of the other evidence defendants cite under these material facts adequately establishes the facts

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

XXXXXXXXX JO XXXXXX VS ANNA MARIA RICARDO ET AL

On September 11, 2018, Ricardo filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, alleging the following causes of action: Accounting; Declaratory Relief; Breach of Contract; Promissory Estoppel; Conversion; Unjust Enrichment; Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion into Private Affairs); Negligence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ALICE JUNE DAVIDSON VS ANDREA LIN, ET AL.

The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 7, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) trespass; (2) trespass – extra hazardous activities; (3) injunctive relief; (4) declaratory relief; (5) public nuisance; (6) private nuisance; (7) failure to abate artificial condition on land creating nuisance; (8) negligence; (9) invasion of privacy – intrusion into private affairs; (10) invasion of privacy – portraying a person in a false light; and (11) IIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

J.K. VS XXXXXX

.); Intrusion into Private Affairs; Negligence; and Defamation. Motion Defendant John Muir Health demurs to the First Cause of Action for “Violation of California’s CMIA” and Third Cause of Action for “Negligence” as to Plaintiffs Kirsty Keilen and Matthew Keilen on the ground the causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

ABDELGADER V. VILLA LUCIA

It encompasses unconsented-to physical intrusion into the home, hospital room or other place the privacy of which is legally recognized, as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying.” (Id. at 230-231.) “The action for intrusion has two elements: (1) intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter, (2) in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (Id. at 231.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §§ 630, et seq.) and (2) invasion of privacy – intrusion into private affairs. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. For over the past 12 years, Plaintiff has been in the business of providing equipment financing and related services to companies seeking equipment leases and other such financing, through two companies that he controls, MaxPro Leasing, LLC (“MaxPro”) and AKT Enterprises, LLC (“AKT”), and through a third company, Technijian, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.