What is an intrusion into private affairs?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – Intrusion into Private Affairs

Recent Rulings on Privacy – Intrusion into Private Affairs

LAJOY BARBER VS VICTOR LOPEZ

On August 13, 2020, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff alleging the following causes of action: Negligence; Intentional infliction of emotional distress; Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; Breach of implied warranty of habitability; Trespass; Trespass to chattels; Breach of contract; and Intrusion into private affairs. Plaintiff moves to strike the Cross-Complaint it in its entirety. The motion is opposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAURIE WILUAN VS STEVE AGOSTON, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On August 3, 2020, plaintiff Laurie Kyong Wiluan filed a complaint against Steve and Annalisa Agoston, ind. and as trustees of the Agoston Family Revocable Trust for (1) violation of Civil Code 1950.5, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) IIED, and (4) declaratory relief. LEGAL AUTHORITY When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

LAURIE WILUAN VS STEVE AGOSTON, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On August 3, 2020, plaintiff Laurie Kyong Wiluan filed a complaint against Steve and Annalisa Agoston, ind. and as trustees of the Agoston Family Revocable Trust for (1) violation of Civil Code 1950.5, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) IIED, and (4) declaratory relief. LEGAL AUTHORITY When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAURIE WILUAN VS STEVE AGOSTON, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On August 3, 2020, plaintiff Laurie Kyong Wiluan filed a complaint against Steve and Annalisa Agoston, ind. and as trustees of the Agoston Family Revocable Trust for (1) violation of Civil Code 1950.5, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) IIED, and (4) declaratory relief. LEGAL AUTHORITY When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MARGARITA Z. RAMIREZ VS WORLD OIL CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (4) violation of CFRA rights, (5) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (7) wrongful constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. V. MAX BARIL, ET AL.

In its first amended complaint (FAC), plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) constructive eviction, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) trespass, (5) intrusion into private affairs, and (6) declaratory relief. Plaintiff asserts only the fourth and fifth causes of action against Meridian.

  • Hearing

PADRON V. BELTRAN

Invasion of Privacy Defendant has defined and argues concerning one form of the tort of invasion of privacy, but there are actually four versions of this tort: 1) intrusion into private affairs; 2) public disclosure of private facts (which defendant discusses); 3) placing the plaintiff in a false light; and 4) appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness. More than one type of privacy tort can apply to a particular fact situation. (Fairfield v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

FRANCISCA LOPEZ, ET AL. VS RAMIN VEISEH, ET AL.

On December 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for (1) violation of the FEHA, (2) violation of the Unruh Act, (3) intrusion into private affairs, (4) retaliation in violation of Civil Code §§1942.5(a), 1942.5(d), (5) breach of the common law covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment – Civil Code §1940.2, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (8) violation of the Bane Act, (9) breach of common law duty of

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ROBERT SCHIELE, ET AL. VS EDMOND MIRZAKHANIAN

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on July 20, 2020, alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass; (3) Nuisance and (4) Intrusion into Private Affairs. PRESENTATION: Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on July 22, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition on August 4, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on August 10, 2020. The original hearing date for the motion was on August 14, 2020. On August 14, 2020, the Court continued the instant matter to August 19, 2020, and waived notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ALICE JUNE DAVIDSON VS ANDREA LIN, ET AL.

The 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. 2.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT SCHIELE, ET AL. VS EDMOND MIRZAKHANIAN

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on July 20, 2020, alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass; (3) Nuisance and (4) Intrusion into Private Affairs. PRESENTATION: Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on July 22, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition on August 4, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on August 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The court denied the motion as to the second (civil stalking), fifth (negligent infliction of emotional distress), and ninth (intrusion into private affairs) causes of action. The court finds that Defendant partially prevailed on the anti-SLAPP motion. He successfully narrowed the lawsuit's scope by removing two of the nine causes of action he sought to strike. He also limited discovery and the necessary work in trying the case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASHBY VS. BELINSKY

The causes of action in the FAC are: Defamation, False Light, Intrusion into Private Affairs, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), Trespass to Chattels, Conversion, and Battery.

  • Hearing

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

  • 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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.