Claims for Invasion of Privacy

Useful Rulings on Privacy – Invasion of Privacy

Recent Rulings on Privacy – Invasion of Privacy

ROSE FAY ARFA VS RONEN S. GRACE

Grace, individually and as Trustee of the EJG Family Trust, dated January 25, 2018, and Does 1 -20 for: (1) nuisance; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) spite fence abatement- Civil Code § 841.4; (4) Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code§ 41.30 (Pursuant to Government Code § 36900); (5) Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code§ 12.22.C.20(f) (Pursuant to Government Code § 36900); (6) Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 12.08.C.2 (Pursuant to Government Code § 36900) in connection with a tree and a bamboo wall

  • Hearing

DAVID BABAIE, ET AL. VS TRANS WEST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

On April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs David Babaie, Tatiana Babaie, and Leonard Mehrabian commenced this action against Defendants Trans West Investigations, Inc. and Antonio Villanueva for (1) unlawful installation of GPS tracker in violation of Penal Code section 637.7; (2) invasion of privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1708.8; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.’

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL REACH VS JOHN SPAHI, ET AL.,

An otherwise actionable invasion of privacy may be legally justified if it substantively furthers one or more legitimate competing interests. (Hill, at p. 40, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Conversely, the invasion may be unjustified if the claimant can point to ‘feasible and effective alternatives’ with ‘a lesser impact on privacy interests.” County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 926.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(collectively, "Defendants") violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 630 et seq., by, inter alia, eavesdropping upon and recording her telephone conversations without her knowledge or consent. On June 5, 2019, Defendants submitted a written settlement offer to Plaintiff under California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 998 (the "998 Offer"). See Ex. A to the Declaration of Deborah L. Raymond.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

The documents sought are extremely overbroad as to time and scope, and will undeniably result in the invasion of privacy interests for ten years’ worth of non-party witnesses. The Motion to Quash is GRANTED. There are far less-intrusive methods of discovery available to Plaintiff that should be utilized in order to obtain the information sought. The alternative motions for protective order and/or evidentiary sanctions are denied as moot.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KARLA GOMEZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ government claims fairly reflect the facts and legal theory underlying their invasion of privacy cause of action. Plaintiffs’ government claims recounts in detail the events of the April 2018 probationer search of the Home. (RJN Ex. 7.) Plaintiffs expressly allege in their government claims that Defendants did not “honor[] their right to privacy.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MARY WALDEN VS BINH NGUYEN, ET AL.

.)¿ There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.”¿ (Williams v.

  • Hearing

MAI PHAM, MD VS EYE PHYSICIANS OF LONG BEACH, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.

Privacy The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established the seriousness of any prospective invasion of privacy. Neither the moving nor reply papers indicate how Plaintiff’s privacy rights would be implicated by the disclosure of information requested in the Subpoenas. Moreover, the declaration provided in support of the Motion is void of any mention of how Plaintiff’s privacy rights would be impacted if the information requested in the Subpoenas is disclosed[1].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) (Pen. 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREA GALANTE VS LAUREN ENGLISH

The second through seventh causes of action set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint are tort causes of action: conversion; fraud; invasion of privacy; unjust enrichment; interference with contractual relations; negligence. The attorney’s fees provision in the Stipulated Judgment does not purport to apply to tort causes of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SHILIN JIANG VS DAZHI CHEN

Civil Code § 1708.8(a) provides: (a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. (Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ENRIQUE RICARDO VARGAS ET AL VS NINA R RINGOLD ET AL

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging seven causes of action: Breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment Unlawful entry Intrusion into private matters Invasion of privacy to capture physical impression For abatement of continuing private nuisance and damages Intentional infliction of emotional distress Declaratory relief On June 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Eddye Melaragno only.

  • Hearing

JEFFREY D. EVERHARD V. COMMUNITY ARTS MUSIC ASSOCIATION OF SANTA BARBARA, INC., ET AL.

[FAC 21:7-8] The causes of action are 1) violation of the ADA and Civil Code §§ 41 & 42 (CAMA, Doe 3); 2) “Unlawful Exclusion ADDITIONAL COUNT” (CAMA, Alvarez); 3) battery (CAMA, Doe 1); 4) violation of Bane Act, statutory damages (CAMA, Doe 1); 5) violation of Bane Act, actual and compensatory damages (CAMA, Doe 1); 6) invasion of privacy (CAMA, Doe 3); 7) general negligence (CAMA, Alvarez); 8) breach of contract (CAMA); 9) abrogation of protected speech (CAMA, Alvarez); and 10) Ralph Act (CAMA, Alvarez, Does

  • Hearing

MAX HENNARD VS ASIAN PACIFIC HEALTH CARE VENTURE INC ET AL

The court previously granted Cook’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike from Hennard’s complaint the third through the eighth causes of action and that portion of the second cause of action for invasion of privacy based upon public disclosure and not intrusion. The court denied the motion as to the first cause of action and to that portion of the second cause of action for invasion of privacy based upon intrusion. Cook seeks an award of $19,217.57 in attorney fees. (Motion, p. 12.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WILFRED POOL VS ROBERT KRIBS

Superior Court¿(2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.)¿ There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.”¿ (Williams v.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL BLUMENKRANTZ VS BB LAW GROUP, LLP, ET AL.

Plaintiff sues for misappropriation, invasion of privacy, defamation and conversion. Defendants move to strike under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16. Analysis Courts resolving an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16 follow a two-step process. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733. In prong one, the court determines whether the conduct underlying plaintiff’s cause of action arises from defendant’s constitutional rights of free speech or petition. Baral v.

  • Hearing

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

He must make a similar showing as to his false light invasion of privacy claims. (Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, n. 16 [explaining that a false light claim “is in substance equivalent to the [plaintiff's] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim on all aspects”].) Here, Plaintiff has made the required limited showing.

  • Hearing

GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS

Witkin describes the relationship of the two torts: The Restatement describes the relationship of false light invasion of privacy to defamation as follows: "In many cases to which the rule stated here applies, the publicity given to the plaintiff is defamatory, so that he would have an action for libel or slander. ...

  • Hearing

MORRIS MICHAEL LIFSCHUTZ VS NOEMI DAVALOS-BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

  • Hearing

LEHRER PARTNERS, L.P. VS SKY ISLAND, INC., ET AL.

“A threatened invasion of privacy can, to be sure, be extremely grave, and to the extent it is, to conclude in a given case that only a compelling countervailing interest and an absence of alternatives will suffice to justify the intrusion may be right. (Citation.) But the flaw in the Court of Appeal's legal analysis, and in the cases it relied upon, is the de facto starting assumption that such an egregious invasion is involved in every request for discovery of private information.

  • Hearing

SANTA ANA NEEDS EQUITY VS. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA

This order permitting Wallace’s deposition to proceed is without prejudice to the rights of the parties at the deposition to make such objections to relevance, invasion of privacy, etc., as may be appropriate. The motion is GRANTED, without prejudice, as to the Requests for Production of Documents.

  • Hearing

MARO BURUNSUZYAN VS DIMITRI ROGER

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. On March 4, 2020, the Court granted Judgment Creditor’s request for entry of default judgment in the total amount of $601,235.15 against Judgment Debtor.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAULA JUSZCZYK VS NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE, ET AL.

In fact, Defendant does not even identify any areas of questioning that would implicate any serious invasion of privacy. Rather, Defendant contends, without any citation to legal authority, that it is Plaintiff’s burden to show a compelling interest in order to question an employee of Defendant. Thus, Defendant has failed to meet its burden in establishing the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ESPERANZA MOLINA VS FOREST LAWN MORTUARY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Third, the invasion of privacy must be serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact. Hill, at 37. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the invasion of privacy is serious, then the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing or countervailing interests. Hill, at 37-40. The California Supreme Court, in Williams v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 50     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.