Claims for Invasion of Privacy

Useful Rulings on Privacy – Invasion of Privacy

Recent Rulings on Privacy – Invasion of Privacy

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Fifth Cause of Action: Intrusion into Private Affairs “An actionable claim [for invasion of privacy] requires three essential elements: (1) the claimant must possess a legally protected privacy interest; (2) the claimant’s expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable; and (3) the invasion of privacy complained of must be serious in both its nature and scope.” (County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 926, citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

Analysis Whether Plaintiff’s Action Is Outside Statute of Limitations An action for right of publicity is a type of action for invasion of privacy. (Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 400, 409.) Invasion of privacy claims are subject to the single-publication rule under Civil Code section 3425.3. (Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 468, 476.) Further, a cause of action for right of publicity carries a two-year statute of limitations. (Long v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREWS V. HESS

Invasion of Privacy (Second Cause of Action) The threshold elements of an invasion of privacy claim are: “(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Lewis v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 561, 571; see also Hernandez v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JIN GEE VS SUNG BROTHERS CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Wenjay Sung, and Yue Zhao RELIEF REQUESTED: File a Second Amended Complaint Date Original Complaint filed: May 22, 2019 Effect of Amendment Adds paragraphs to general allegations, adds eighth cause of action for disgorgement of architect’s fees, ninth cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion, and adds to the relief sought disgorgement of profits and punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Constitution; (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (7) invasion of privacy under article I, section I of the California Constitution; (8) Bane Act violations; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) unfair and deceptive business practices; and (11) slander of title. The City subsequently demurred to all of the claims asserted in the Falcocchia’s cross- complaint on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 43010, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MARTIN ARMANDO RENTERIA VS MARIO ALBERTO ACUNA

While the court is sensitive to Defendant’s need to obtain data to establish the reasonable value of the medical services provided to Plaintiff, the court is also mindful of the balancing it must conduct between the Defendant’s need for the requested information, and the expense and invasion of privacy of Dr. Kasimian. The burden is on Defendant to demonstrate that the information he seeks could not be obtained through other means. Here, it seems Defendant could conduct a deposition of Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Slander of Title, Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness, Identity Theft, Declaration of Identity Theft [Civil Code §1798.93], & Invasion of Privacy (11th 12th, 13th, 14th, & 15th COAs) Plaintiff failed to allege facts to establish her causes of action for slander of title, misappropriation of likeness, identity theft, declaration of identity theft, and invasion of privacy against DLD Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

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

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

AASIR AZZARMI VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC, ET AL.

., Andrea Misserian, Juan Diaz, Richard Lorich, Debbie Bunch, Tracy Gallegos, Jeanne Maumus, and Does for 39 causes of action, including FEHA, wrongful termination, IIED, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, fraud, defamation, and Labor Code violations. On January 2, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application to file a FAC and lift stay of discovery. Defendants’ special motion to strike was withdrawn as moot.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PAUL HENREID VS RICHARD SKAGGS

In 1999 Plaintiff was convicted in the State of Missouri for invasion of privacy and the conviction was expunged in 2018. Plaintiff, an attorney, filed an action for libel against Defendant and is a Self-Represented Litigant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

MICHELLE MANNING VS TODD SMITH, ET AL.

Code § 12955); Discrimination (Civil Code § 51); Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment (Civil Code § 1940.2); Defamation; Invasion of Privacy; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5(d) and Common Law); and Constructive Eviction. On February 10, 2020 the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

By way of background, on October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against Defendants alleging the following 15 causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of oral partnership agreement, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, (6) invasion of privacy, (7) conversion, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) unpaid wages, (10) unpaid wages, (11) failure to reimburse expenses, (12) failure to provide accurate wage

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

HESPER NATALE, ET AL V. SKY RIVER, INC., ET AL

The Court further notes that none of the grounds set forth above address Harmon-Perry’s third cause of action for common law invasion of privacy. That she demurs to the entire FACC but fails to set forth a ground in her demurrer addressing one of the causes of action is sufficient to overrule the demurrer itself. Moreover, the Court overrules the demurrer to the third cause of action as it is argued in Natale’s points and authorities.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

NOEMI BETANCOURT GUSMAN ET AL VS SUMMIT CARE LLC ET AL

To evaluate claims of invasion of privacy (including when deciding the scope of discovery), a court should employ the analytical framework that the California Supreme Court set forth in Hill v. Nat’l.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MCNAUGHTON V. NEWPORT HARBOR OFFICES OF MARINA LLC

Hill identified three factors to be considered in this determination: (1) whether the privacy interest at stake is legally protected, (2) whether there is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) whether the disclosure constitutes a serious invasion of privacy. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JASON HUTCHINSON VS GOOGLE, INC., ET AL.

Likewise, “the invasion of privacy complained of must be ‘serious’ in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an ‘egregious’ breach of social norms, for trivial invasions afford no cause of action.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371.) Imposition of a protective order covering the personnel information disclosed by this subpoena ensures that any invasion of privacy is minimal.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MADELEINE KENNEDY VS THE GENFILMS GROUP ET AL

“‘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) (internal citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SALMA MIKHAIL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE EZZAT & SALMA MIKHAIL LIVING TRUST 2006 DATED APRIL 11, 2006 VS. BABLOT

Mikhail concerning his personal injury, invasion of privacy, and property damage claims. Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Salma Mikhail and Ezzat Mikhail as trustees of the Ezzat & Salma Mikhail Living Trust 2006 dated April 11, 2006 (“the Mikhails”) contend that Mr. Mikhail’s testimony is of little significance and that the claims can be evaluated through other testimony and documentary evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

THORNTON TOMASETTI, INC. VS CYNTHIA BURCH

There is no serious invasion of privacy threatened either. The information sought is not highly sensitive, unlike medical information or private, personal information. Plaintiffs do not intend to use the information obtained for anything but this litigation. Any potential invasion of privacy would be easily remediable by protective order, although Pierson fails to establish the need for such an order given the nature of the information sought. Pierson’s privacy objections are overruled.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL GILLING VS APOLLO COURIERS., A

To evaluate claims of invasion of privacy (including when deciding the scope of discovery), a court should employ the analytical framework that the California Supreme Court set forth in Hill v. Nat’l.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

With regard to third-party privacy of third parties, Plaintiff Robert has not established that the requests for production seek information that constitutes a serious invasion of privacy. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (“In Hill, we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MCLARRY VS ALLEN

The complaint for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and IIED was filed January 11, 2019. The summons and complaint were promptly served. ROA 8, 9. When neither defendant filed a responsive pleading, defaults were entered. ROA 17, 18. Recognizing the procedural hurdles arising from the absence of a Statement of Damages, plaintiffs applied to set aside the defaults. ROA 19. The court granted the request. ROA 20-22. The FAC, alleging the same three counts, was thereafter filed. ROA 25.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

JANE DOE V. PETER SEARLE CLARK

On October 4, 2019, plaintiff filed her complaint against defendant for (1) unlawful recording of confidential communications, (2) violation of Civil Code Section 1708.85, (3) invasion of privacy, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) civil extortion. Defendant answered the complaint and also filed a special motion to strike plaintiff’s second and fifth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

EDWARD RUSTAMZADEH, M.D., ET AL. V. JILL CUDIA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

JIN V. LI

Third and fourth causes of action for misappropriation of likeness Jin moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for statutory misappropriation of likeness pursuant to Civil Code § 3344 and the fourth cause of action for common law misappropriation of likeness [invasion of privacy]. “[C]ourts have recognized four distinct forms of tortious invasion of privacy: (1) the commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness (codified in California in 1971 in Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.