Intrusion into Private Affairs in California

Intrusion into Private Affairs The tort of intrusion into private affairs “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.” Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 230.

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.)

.; (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.

Plaintiffs Michelle and Patrick Lawson allege causes of action for Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy, Intrusion into Private Affairs, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 arising out of defendants' alleged conduct in videotaping their wedding ceremony and reception without their knowledge.

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.) It is in the intrusion cases that invasion of privacy is most clearly seen as an affront to individual dignity.

The intrusion into private affairs claim is based on the allegation that Bridge and Murphy hired a private investigation agency to investigate Plaintiff to serve legal documents in the Nevada Case. ( Id. at ¶ 57.) The libel/slander per se cause of action is based on the cease-and-desist letter accusing Plaintiff of libel, harassment, and extortion. ( Id. at ¶ 61.)

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

C/A 2, To Enjoin Intrusion Into Private Affairs: To prevail on the merits of the intrusion into private affairs claim, Plaintiffs must show: (1) they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and rear yards (2) Defendants intentionally intruded in their homes and rear yards; (3) that Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs have been harmed; and (5) that

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

VORIS DEMURRER TO TAC Sustained without leave to amend: Intrusion into private affairs: The Court sustained with leave to amend the second cause of action to enjoin intrusion into private affairs so that Plaintiffs could plead facts showing an invasion that is highly offensive.

Plaintiff argues that her claim for private nuisance and intrusion into private affairs requires allegations of Defendants intent to create an offensive condition or intent to intrude into her home. Paragraph 8 states as follows: Defendants are well-known in the neighborhood as troublemakers.

The notice of motion seeks to strike only the third cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and cross-complainant’s arguments concerning the first cause of action for statutory invasion of privacy and intrusion into private affairs appear to be based entirely on an allegation that “...Ms. Woloski kept the video recording and may be showing it to other prospective patients....”, which allegation appears only in the third cause of action.

Ramirez (Plaintiff) filed her First Amended Complaint against her employer World Oil Corp. and Asbury Environmental Services (collectively Defendant), alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to engage in the interactive process; (2) Intrusion into private affairs; (3) Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (4) Violation of CFRA rights; (5) Employment discrimination; (6) Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; and (7) Wrongful constructive discharge.

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.

Seventh COA (Intrusion into Private Affairs) as to Defendant Cristina Sarabia The elements of a claim for intrusion into private affairs includes: “(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. The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a cause of action for intrusion into private affairs against Sarabia.

Seventh Cause of Action – Intrusion into Private Affairs The tort of intrusion into private places, conversations or matter 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. (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 230-231 (Shulman).)

(TAC ¶ 35) The Third Amended Complaint (1) alleges a breach of equitable servitude (against all Defendants), (2) seeks to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (against (John and Raquel Voris), (3) seeks to enjoin private nuisance (against all Defendants), (4) seeks injunctive relief (against all Defendants), and (5) seeks declaratory relief (against all Defendants).

(TAC ¶ 35) The Third Amended Complaint (1) alleges a breach of equitable servitude (against all Defendants), (2) seeks to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (against (John and Raquel Voris), (3) seeks to enjoin private nuisance (against all Defendants), (4) seeks injunctive relief (against all Defendants), and (5) seeks declaratory relief (against all Defendants).

(TAC ¶ 35) The Third Amended Complaint (1) alleges a breach of equitable servitude (against all Defendants), (2) seeks to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (against (John and Raquel Voris), (3) seeks to enjoin private nuisance (against all Defendants), (4) seeks injunctive relief (against all Defendants), and (5) seeks declaratory relief (against all Defendants).

(TAC ¶ 35) The Third Amended Complaint (1) alleges a breach of equitable servitude (against all Defendants), (2) seeks to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (against (John and Raquel Voris), (3) seeks to enjoin private nuisance (against all Defendants), (4) seeks injunctive relief (against all Defendants), and (5) seeks declaratory relief (against all Defendants).

(TAC ¶ 35) The Third Amended Complaint (1) alleges a breach of equitable servitude (against all Defendants), (2) seeks to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (against (John and Raquel Voris), (3) seeks to enjoin private nuisance (against all Defendants), (4) seeks injunctive relief (against all Defendants), and (5) seeks declaratory relief (against all Defendants).

(TAC ¶ 35) The Third Amended Complaint (1) alleges a breach of equitable servitude (against all Defendants), (2) seeks to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (against (John and Raquel Voris), (3) seeks to enjoin private nuisance (against all Defendants), (4) seeks injunctive relief (against all Defendants), and (5) seeks declaratory relief (against all Defendants).

As to the fourth cause of action for intrusion into private affairs, the demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff alleges the elements of the claim sufficient to survive demurrer. As to the sixth cause of action for forcible entry, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff does not allege Defendant Berge entered onto her property by force. Plaintiff has at most set forth facts of alleged trespass, a cause of action which is already asserted elsewhere in her complaint.

As to the fourth cause of action for intrusion into private affairs, the demurrer is overruled. Defendants assert Plaintiff admits Defendants believed the work they were performing was on property they believed was Defendant Daniel Berge's property, and thus the intent element of the cause of action is not adequately alleged. However, the court is not persuaded. Plaintiff alleges intent sufficient to survive demurrer.

The tort of intrusion “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.” (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 230.) “Plaintiffs must show more than an intrusion upon reasonable privacy expectations.

C. 4th COA: Intrusion into Private Affairs SUSTAINED with leave to amend. “A claim for intrusion into private affairs contains two elements: 1) intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter, and 2) in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.

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.

Plaintiff Lloyd Stevens moves for leave to file a first amended complaint to add causes of action for fraud and deceit, intrusion into private affairs, nuisance, and conversion; and to add Dark Blue Sea Enterprise, an Australian Corporation, Fabulous.com LTD, an Australian proprietary company, Futurebright Solutions, an unknown business entity from Michigan, and Audacity Media Group, LLC, a Florida company.

into private affairs; and (7) violation of mandatory statutory duties.

into private affairs; and (7) violation of mandatory statutory duties.

On January 27, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted a first amended complaint 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 prospective economic relationship; (7) negligent interference with prospective economic relationship; (8) intrusion into private affairs; and (9) assault (ROA No. 52) (the "FAC").

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.

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.)

Background On November 3, 2016, Plaintiffs Klarissa Castro and Michael Roud (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendants Archive Events, Inc. and Sunstone Vineyards and Winery (“Sunstone”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) trespass, (4) private nuisance, (5) intrusion into private affairs, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Background On November 3, 2016, Plaintiffs Klarissa Castro and Michael Roud (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendants Archive Events, Inc. and Sunstone Vineyards and Winery (“Sunstone”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) trespass, (4) private nuisance, (5) intrusion into private affairs, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

into private affairs; and (7) violation of mandatory statutory duties.

[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.

.: 20VECV00347 Moving Party: Plaintiff Pearlie Kate Miller Responding Party: No opposition BACKGROUND On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff Pearlie Kate Miller filed a complaint against Defendant Jane/John Doe asserting causes of action for Defamation, Intrusion into Private Affairs, Civil Extortion (Blackmail), and Revenge Porn. On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff named Jane Doe as Tiffany Warren. Plaintiff is an investigative journalist/documentary filmmaker.

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

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 6/5/17 against defendant for: (1) violations of constitutional right to privacy; (2) intrusion into private affairs; (3) public disclosure of private facts; and (4) false light. Plaintiff alleges that on 6/15/16 she suffered a medical emergency inside of her home. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s husband contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”), and several deputies responded and took plaintiff to seek medical attention. (Id., ¶¶ 11-13.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed February 28, 2020 alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to reimburse, (2) failure to timely page wages, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraudulent inducement/false promises, (5) intrusion into private affairs, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code §17200. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service as to service on Goldberg PC.

into private affairs; and (7) violation of mandatory statutory duties.

Invasion of privacy - intrusion into private affairs. Defamation per se The subject interrogatories are as follows: Form Interrogatory 2.3: At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so, state: (a) The state or other issuing entity; (b) The license number and type; (c) The date of issuance; and (d) All restrictions. Form Interrogatory 2.4: At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have any other permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle?

As to the sixth cause of action for intrusion into private affairs, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter; and, in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. As to the seventh cause of action for premises liability, the demurrer is overruled. Plaintiffs have alleged that injury occurred after the toilet fell causing bleeding to Plaintiff's head.

INTRUSION INTO PRIVATE AFFAIRS — FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION “[T]he 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.” (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231.) CC argues that no intrusion claim can lie here because “no eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying occurred.” (Demurrer at p. 10.)

into private affairs; and (7) violation of mandatory statutory duties.

On March 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. asserting claims for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and invasion of privacy (intrusion into private affairs). On July 18, 2016, this Court granted defendant's opposed motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending completion of the arbitration.

First Cause of Action – Invasion of Privacy The elements of a cause of action for invasion of privacy, on the basis of intrusion into private affairs, are as follows: (1) intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter; (2) in a matter highly offensive to a reasonable person. (Marich v. MGM/UA Telecommunications, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 415, 431.) The element of intrusion “‘is not met when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place.’

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

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) False Imprisonment; (4) Domestic Violence; (5) Invasion of Privacy; (6) Intrusion Into Private Affairs; (7) Extortion; (8) Ejectment; (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (10) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (11) Willful Misconduct. Defendant ANTHONY APODACA demurs to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.

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.

Intrusion into Private Affairs To establish a prima facie case of intrusion into private affairs, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) World Oil engaged in conduct that invaded Plaintiff’s privacy interests; (2) Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the interests invaded; (3) the invasion was serious; (4) and the invasion caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 32-37.)

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. The pertinent allegations are as follows.

On 09/14/17, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against defendants for: (1) violations of constitutional right of privacy; (2) intrusion into private affairs; (3) public disclosure of private facts; and (4) false light. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered a medical emergency in her home. Her husband, a Los Angeles County Sheriff, contacted the Sheriff’s department to request assistance.

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.

On April 2, 2018, Joe Carrari (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against various family members alleging (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) elder abuse; (5) trespass; (6) stalking; (7) intrusion into private affairs; and (8) false imprisonment. Each of the seven individual Defendants has answered the complaint. This litigation arises out of a family dispute which occurred on December 25, 2017, at Plaintiff’s home.

In sum, the Court finds Cross-Complainant has sufficiently alleged a cause of action for intrusion into private affairs. The demurrer is overruled as to the first cause of action.

Fifth Cause of Action: Invasion of Privacy The fifth cause of action, titled “Invasion of Privacy,” might refer to a number of different torts dealing with one person’s intrusion into, or disclosure of, another individual’s private affairs—for example, intrusion into private affairs, public disclosure of private facts, false light publicity, or appropriation of name or likeness.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Sustained with leave to amend: The elements to enjoin intrusion into private affairs (2nd cause of action) are not met “when the plaintiff has merely been observed, or even photographed or recorded, in a public place. Rather, ‘the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, […] the plaintiff.” Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914-915.

Ramirez (Plaintiff) filed her First Amended Complaint against her employers World Oil Corp. and Asbury Environmental Services (collectively Defendants), alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to engage in the interactive process; (2) Intrusion into private affairs; (3) Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (4) Violation of CFRA rights; (5) Employment discrimination; (6) Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; and (7) Wrongful constructive discharge.

COA 2: Invasion of privacy, intrusion into private affairs An action for intrusion has two basic elements: (1) intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter, and (2) in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231.) Plaintiff may allege element one by asserting the Defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, or obtained unwanted access to data about Plaintiff. (Id. at 232.)

Ramirez (Plaintiff) filed her First Amended Complaint against her employers World Oil Corp. and Asbury Environmental Services, and Does 1-25 (collectively Defendants), alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to engage in the interactive process; (2) Intrusion into private affairs; (3) Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (4) Violation of CFRA rights; (5) Employment discrimination; (6) Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; and (7) Wrongful constructive discharge.

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.

The FAC sets forth six causes of action: (1) trespass to land; (2) trespass to timber; (3) private nuisance; (4) intrusion into private affairs; (5) IIED; and (6) negligence. Defendant now moves for summary judgment/adjudication. Defendant argues that each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action fails because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that Defendant or any person acting on her behalf entered their property and poisoned their trees.

Plaintiffs Complaint, filed February 28, 2020 alleges seven causes of action: (1) failure to reimburse; (2) failure to timely page wages; (3) breach of contract; (4) fraudulent inducement/ false promises; (5) intrusion into private affairs; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service as to service on Goldberg PC (the January POS).

Explanation: Plaintiff brings suit for public disclosure of private facts, intrusion into private affairs, defamation, and false light.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Second Cause of Action (Intrusion Into Private Affairs) A privacy violation based on the common law tort of intrusion has two elements. First, the defendant must intentionally intrude into a place, conversation, or matter as to which the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, the intrusion must occur in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. (People v. Bollaert (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 699, 712.)

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: The Court received the instant motion filed by Defendant on May 07, 2021 and the opposition filed by Plaintiff on June 14, 2021. No reply has been received by the Court. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant moves to strike the following punitive damages allegations from the operative Complaint: 1.

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.

Discussion The pleading elements for intrusion into private affairs are: 1) That plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a specific place or other circumstance; 2) That defendant intentionally intruded in the specific place or other circumstance; 3) That defendants intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; 4) That plaintiff was harmed; and 5) That defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs harm. (CACI no. 1800.)