Claims for Invasion of Privacy in California

What Are Claims for Invasion of Privacy?

Generally

“The right of privacy is the right to be left alone. It is a fundamental and compelling interest. It protects our homes, our families, our thoughts, our emotions, our expressions, our personalities, our freedom of communion and our freedom to associate with the people we choose.” Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 881, 893.

The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy (as well as the public’s “right of access to information concerning the public’s business”). Cal. Const. art. I, § 1, art. I, § 3(b)(1). However, this right is not absolute. This right “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” Pioneer Electronics, USA, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.

A party asserting a right to privacy must establish three elements:

  1. a legally protected privacy interest,
  2. an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and
  3. a threatened intrusion that is serious.

Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-40.

Once these three elements are met, the court must then balance the parties’ competing considerations for and against disclosure of the privacy-protected information. Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552. Under this balancing test, a compelling interest is required to justify an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy. Id. at 556. However, whenever lesser interests are at stake, “the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information var[ies] according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.” Id.

Invasion of Privacy – Tort Liability

Four kinds of activities have been found to violate the constitutional right to privacy and give rise to tort liability:

  1. intrusion into private matters;
  2. public disclosure of private facts;
  3. publicity placing a person in a false light; and
  4. misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness.

Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129.

Public Records Act (PRA) Requests and Privacy Rights

Disclosure of public records has the potential to impact individual privacy. The PRA defines “public records” broadly to include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016-17. Public records can include “personal details about private citizens,” and disclosure may infringe upon privacy interests. Id. (Note, this does not include court records. City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 773 citing Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 726.)

Disclosure of public records thus involves two fundamental yet competing interests:

  1. prevention of secrecy in government; and
  2. protection of individual privacy

City of San Jose v. Super. Ct. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016-17.

This exemption requires the court to “balance two competing interests, both of which the [PRA] seeks to protect—the public’s interest in disclosure and the individual’s interest in personal privacy.” Int’l Federation (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 329-30; see also Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222, 240.

Examples

Medical Records

Civil Code § 56.10 provides that “[a] provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall not disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).” Civ. Code Sec. 56.10(a). Exceptions to subsection (a) include a request by the patient or the patient’s representative pursuant to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code (commencing with § 123100). Id., Sec. 56.10(b)(7).

A disclosure under § 56.10(a) requires an affirmative communicative act—i.e., an affirmative sharing of medical information with another person or entity. Sutter Health v. Super. Ct. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1555-56.

Cell Phone Records

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life,’ Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. 373, 403. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Id; see also In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal. App. 4th 896, 902 (inspection of electronic devices present “significant privacy implications.”).

The party seeking disclosure must show a particularized need for the confidential information sought. The information must be directly relevant to a party’s cause of action and essential to determining the truth of the matters in dispute. Discovery will not be ordered if the information sought is available from other sources or through less intrusive means. Britt v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-861.

“While the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such waiver must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits... [A]n implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Vinson v. Super. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842. The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. Harris v. Super. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665.

Rulings for Privacy – Invasion of Privacy in California

Lastly, with respect to whether the disclosure of the records would be a serious invasion of privacy interest, Plaintiffs contend that although the request for content is a more serious invasion of privacy, it is justified because telephone providers discard records after 6 months and, if the evidence is not disclosed it will be lost forever.

  • Name

    HIGGINS VS. DOES 1 TO 250

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01016374-CU-DF-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2018

Legal Support Inc. as to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy and the Seventh Cause of Action for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law only - is GRANTED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as unopposed. (See Plaintiff's Notice of Non-Opposition filed December 31, 2020.) The Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy and the Seventh Cause of Action for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law are DISMISSED, as against Defendant U.S.

  • Name

    TABLER VS SUTTER HEALTH

  • Case No.

    RG20064439

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Judge

    Noël Wise

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

The Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy is DISMISSED, as against Defendants Sutter Health and Sutter Medical Center Castro Valley dba Eden Medical Center (incorrectly sued herein as Eden Medical Center.)

  • Name

    TABLER VS SUTTER HEALTH

  • Case No.

    RG20064439

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Judge

    Noël Wise

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Defendant objects to both requests on the basis of relevance and invasion of privacy, and further stipulated that Retina Institute of California is the principal and employer of Defendant. Defendant fails to sufficiently show why Request Nos. 12 and 13 are an invasion of privacy. The Court further finds that the Request is not irrelevant.

  • Name

    JUAN CASTRO ET AL VS KEVIN SUK M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC710866

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

Second Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy Plaintiffs cause of action for Invasion of Privacy alleges that Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that TransUnion would not solicit or receive information concerning their character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, unless TransUnion complied with all governing laws. (FAC. ¶ 73.)

  • Name

    SYDNEY ROSS, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    23STCV14371

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2024

Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy: Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action alleges a common law claim for intrusion into private matters and a statutory claim of invasion of privacy under California Civil Code Section 1708.8.

  • Name

    ALPAY V. ALVORD

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01064196

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

Moving Party does not present any arguments with respect to this prong of the constitutional invasion of privacy claim. Further, the seriousness of the invasion of privacy appears as if it would require a determination of facts beyond the scope of this demurrer. This Court finds that Plaintiff stated facts sufficient to state a cause of action for the California Constitutional Invasion of Privacy claim.

  • Name

    RITA MOCHALOVA, ET AL. VS TV PRO GEAR, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21GDCV01027

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court sustains without leave to amend the demurrer to the 7th cause of action for invasion of privacy as to the Dorton plaintiffs. The invasion of privacy cause of action did not survive decedent's death. See Flynn v. Highman (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 683. The Court overrules the demurrer to the 4th and 14th causes of action as to the Dorton plaintiffs because it appears that these causes of action are not based solely upon the invasion of privacy.

  • Name

    HEZZACK DANIELS VS. RECOLOGY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10502563

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2012

s Demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for invasion of privacy in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. As with the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint still fails to indicate which type of invasion of privacy is being alleged. Assuming that Plaintiff is alleging the public disclosure of private facts, the FAC fails to allege public disclosure. See Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129-1130; Porten v.

  • Name

    PATRICK THOMPSON VS. JASPER ENGINES AND TRANSMISSIONS

  • Case No.

    56-2018-00509649-CU-DF-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

U EVOLUTION may still maintain that it terminated BARROSO for other “legitimate, non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory” reasons not related to the invasion of privacy. Furthermore, consolidation of this wrongful termination action with the personal injury action can lead to juror confusion. The BARROSO complaint clearly alleges wrongful termination at least in part due to the conduct described in support of the invasion of privacy complaint from ROTHAM. [Compl. ¶ 11.]

  • Name

    DAVID BARROSO VS U EVOLUTION LLC

  • Case No.

    BC628610

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2017

The fourth cause of action for invasion of privacy is barred by the litigation privilege. The only conduct of the demurring defendants that could support liability for invasion of privacy is their alleged transmittal of plaintiffs' tax returns to State Farm.

  • Name

    DENNIS STRAWN ET AL VS. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16553558

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

to Interrogatories & Production of Documents; Request for Orders; Defense Breach of Court Order Issued by Judge Crowley; Defense Breach of Ethics; Protective Order Against Defendant's Invasion of Privacy Attempts scheduled for 12/09/2021 is continued to 01/13/2022 at 01:30 PM in Department 30 at Spring Street Courthouse.

  • Name

    SYLVANA I MCGRAW VS LAPD

  • Case No.

    21STCV06837

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2021

Punitive damages are alleged in support of the nuisance claim and the invasion of privacy claim.

  • Name

    LIZA CANNIZZARO VS LAURA LARSON

  • Case No.

    BC712834

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2019

The general negligence and invasion of privacy causes of action are governed by CCP §335.1. See Cain v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 310, 313, applying the two-year statute of limitations to claims for invasion of privacy. The Penal Code §632 cause of action is governed by the underlying claim that forms its basis, in this case, invasion of privacy, and therefore the same two-year statute applies. Montalti v. Catanzariti (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 96, 98.

  • Name

    VIVIAN TU BANH VS IVONNE V QUINTEROS

  • Case No.

    BC554916

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

Plaintiff relies on the same factual contentions for her common law and statutory invasion of privacy causes of action. (See Compl., ¶¶ 56-77.) For the same reasons described above, the Court finds Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate the alleged invasion of privacy is serious in its nature and scope. Thus, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is also properly granted against Plaintiff’s statutory invasion of privacy cause of action.

  • Name

    NATANIA CHETRIT VS JEFFREY ALLEN LEVE

  • Case No.

    19STCV06169

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

Invasion of Privacy To establish an invasion of privacy claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: “(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.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.)

  • Name

    ELDER, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CV031630

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Invasion of Privacy To establish an invasion of privacy claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: “(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.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.)

  • Name

    LOZA, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CV030619

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Invasion of Privacy To establish an invasion of privacy claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: “(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.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.)

  • Name

    TURNER, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CV032912

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY ("Defendant") challenges Plaintiff OLLIE KATRINA BAPTISTE's ("Plaintiff") causes of action for invasion of privacy and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on privacy violations. As Defendant recognizes, this Court already overruled Defendant's previous demurrer as to the invasion of privacy cause of action.

  • Name

    BAPTISTE VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00012259-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication As To Vanderzanden Cross-Claims For Invasion Of Privacy Set for hearing on Thursday, March 3, 2016, Line 2, PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC's Motion To Seal Portions Of Documents Related To Plaintiff Lyft, Inc. Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication As To Vanderzanden Cross-Claims For Invasion Of Privacy Granted. No opposition filed and good cause shown.

  • Name

    LYFT, INC VS. TRAVIS VANDERZANDEN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14542554

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2016

Discussion Defendants demur to the second cause of action for invasion of privacy, arguing: (1) that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim because they admit they consented to the release of their information and thus cannot allege they had a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (2) Plaintiffs do not allege a serious invasion of privacy. (Demurrer, pp. 6:611, 7:49.) The Court disagrees with these arguments.

  • Name

    MARQUIS CROSBY, ET AL. VS ONNI MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV30852

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, a plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (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. Whether a legally recognized privacy interest is present in a given case is a question of law to be decided by the court.

  • Name

    SHULMAN VS BENNELONG USA LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00009420-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

ANALYSIS Breach of Quiet Enjoyment and Invasion of Privacy The First Cause of Action for Breach of Quiet Enjoyment and Invasion of Privacy is comprised of two separate Causes of Action. Sauza must amend and split this claim into two claims.

  • Name

    VICTOR SAUZA VS BRIAN SCHRIEBER ET AL

  • Case No.

    NC060666

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

sexual exploitation of a minor; (13) constructive invasion of privacy; and (14) distribution of sexually explicit materials.

  • Name

    DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000648

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2023

This phrase taken from CCP §340(3) and placed into CCP §335.1 is the basis for determining that the two year SOL applies to invasion of privacy. The Court of Appeal did not opine that invasion of privacy was akin to slander or libel. There is no legal authority for such a contention. In fact, the legal authority expressly provides that invasion of privacy falls under the purview of the phrase taken from CCP §340(3) and placed into CCP §335.1.

  • Name

    MONTIA SABBAG VS KEVIN HART, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV16533

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Name

    ANDREWS V. HESS

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01078309

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

This request also constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy and calls for the disclosure of private, proprietary and confidential information of those identified in the request. Additionally, Defendants' ethics hotline is intended to permit anonymous reports; those making reports rely on the promise and assurance of anonymity.

  • Name

    CUEVAS VS SHOTTENKIRK- CALIFORNIA LLC HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR DISMISS COMPLAINT OR; ALTERNATIVELY TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS BY SHOTTENKIRK- CALIFORNIA LLC, JOSEPH PESTANO

  • Case No.

    PSC1902488

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

To prevail on an invasion of privacy count, the plaintiffs must not only demonstrate that they are suffering an intrusion into a private place that causes them substantial emotional distress, but they also must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that their claimed emotional distress is objectively reasonable. (See (1999) Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies 20 Cal.4th 907, 915-916). 4.

  • Name

    KLEIN VS. NYAMATHI

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00335844-CU-OR-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2009

etc.) and to whom specifically at Chase it was directed); and 2) pleads the facts set forth in her opposition -- that 462 phone calls were made to her home over a 66-day period, from 8/2/09 to 10/8/09-- and 3) identifies who at the corporate cross-defendant Chase did the harrassment alleged, then plaintiff may well have sufficient facts to overcome a demurrer on both her "invasion of privacy" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress counts." 3.

  • Name

    CHASE BANK USA NA VS. MA S ALEJO

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00363057-CL-CL-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2010

As to the ninth cause of action for invasion of privacy (false light), there is nothing uncertain about the captioning of this claim because false light is one of the four recognized types of tortious invasion of privacy. (See Fellows v. Nat'l Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238.) Additionally, even if the claim were improperly captioned, the mis-captioning of a claim is not a ground for demurrer. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.)

  • Name

    MEHRAN FORUTAN VS. RAHIM BIDGOLI

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00338918-CU-BC-SIM

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2009

of privacy; and 16th cause of action for intentional invasion of privacy.

  • Name

    NATALIA KHORUZHENKO VS. ALAN WU KONG TAN, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC11514760

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2014

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.

  • Name

    ANDREWS V. HESS

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01078309

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that a violation of ICRAA necessarily results in an invasion of privacy. Plaintiff points out that ICRAA does not affect a plaintiffs right to sue for invasion of privacy. (See Civ. Code, § 1786.52.) However, a plaintiff suing for invasion of privacy must still satisfy the elements for that claim. Therefore, the second cause of action, as currently pled, fails to state an invasion of privacy. c.

  • Name

    ROBIN SMITH, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    23STCV00072

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy Plaintiffs cause of action for Invasion of Privacy alleges that Defendant invaded the Plaintiffs rights of privacy by obtaining investigative consumer reports about the Plaintiffs without complying with mandatory requirements under the ICAA [sic] for getting investigative reports about the Plaintiffs. (Comp. ¶ 61.)

  • Name

    SYDNEY ROSS, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    23STCV14371

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2023

Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 2. Did you drive a Lexus? (Depo p. 148: 24.) a. Objected to as overbroad, argumentative, designed to harass the deponent. Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 3. Were you involved in a rear end collision when driving this Lexus? (Depo p. 149: 24.) a. Objected to as overbroad, argumentative, designed to harass the deponent. Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 4.

  • Name

    ARIE WAISBARD, ET AL. VS MARIANE MUFIA BILOLO

  • Case No.

    22BBCV01268

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 283 (1974). 2nd cause of action for invasion of privacy. The allegations do not indicate which type of invasion of privacy is being alleged. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging public disclosure of private facts, Plaintiff must allege (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) that is offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person and (4) not of legitimate public concern or interest. (Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129-1130.)

  • Name

    PATRICK THOMPSON VS. JASPER ENGINES AND TRANSMISSIONS

  • Case No.

    56-2018-00509649-CU-DF-VTA

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2018

DEMURRER DEMURRER TO 4TH AND 5TH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AND INVASION OF PRIVACY SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. CAUSES ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (JH)

  • Name

    ALLEN R SIMPSON VS. BANK OF AMERICA

  • Case No.

    CGC01402367

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2002

With respect to Plaintiff’s argument that the requested documents are an invasion of privacy, the Court finds that there is no invasion of privacy since Plaintiff is the party bringing suit and the facts of this case indicate that Plaintiff’s injury was incurred during the course and scope of his employment.

  • Name

    EDWARD SCOTT VS RADFORD ALEXANDER CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC618893

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

He has filed a form complaint against Defendant, a nationwide television network, and its employees, asserting negligence and invasion of privacy: The complaint contains only cursory supporting allegations. Plaintiff alleges the defendants clandestinely recorded Plaintiff as he masturbated in his prison cell.

  • Name

    KEITH ALLEN LEWIS AND TIM MATTHEWS, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1900869

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    Marin County, CA

In this "neighbor" dispute, Ps allege trespass, nuisance and invasion of privacy, inter alia. D landlord Hagar denurs to and moves to strike various punitive damage allegations of P's FAC. D tenants Hofmeister also move to strike certain allegations relating to controlled substances as well as punitive damages.

  • Name

    GREG TUCKER VS. TOD E HOFMEISTER

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00371472-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2010

Plaintiffs complaint is comprised of one cause of action, for Invasion of Privacy.[A] plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (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. ( Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.)

  • Name

    JEFFREY ITO VS COMPOSITES HORIZONS, LLC

  • Case No.

    23PSCV00546

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

First, the statute of limitations applicable to claims for invasion of privacy is one year. ( Cain v. State Farm Mut. Co. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 310, 313.) Furthermore, Plaintiff states in her brief that she has reason to believe that since 2018, Dr. Haworth has unlawfully searched her medical records and has admitted to doing so to another patient on November 12, 2019. (Opp., 2:19-28.) Second, there are no allegations of wrongdoing by the corporate defendants.

  • Name

    BRENDA BROUSSARD VS RANDAL D. HAWORTH, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV26105

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, the elements of a claim for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution 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 [citations]." (Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 439.) More, widespread public dissemination is not required. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 27.)

  • Name

    M. PAUL HUMPHREYS V. COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER;MARISSA P. DIZON, R.N.; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE

  • Case No.

    17CECG01068

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2017

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

Second COA (Invasion of Privacy): Issue Four: Cross-Complainant Pedro Abrica’s claim for invasion of privacy: As discussed above, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the invasion of privacy is justified by a competing interest. Thus, motion for summary adjudication of issue four is denied.

  • Name

    OROZCO VS. ALUMINUM PRECISION PROD

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00919000-

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2019

The causes of action alleged against defendants are for (1) libel, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) invasion of privacy, false light, (4) invasion of privacy, intrusion, (5) stalking, and (6) negligence. A seventh cause of action for negligent supervision is asserted against the Doe defendants only. Defendants now move for an order transferring the case from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court to the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Central District).

  • Name

    ROBERT ERINGER ET AL VS MEGA GROUP PRIVATE ETC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1415580

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2013

Therefore, the demurrer to both the first cause of action for breach of contract and the second cause of action for invasion of privacy are overruled to the extent they are based on these contentions. Defendants also contend that the cause of action for invasion of privacy is insufficient because the complaint does not allege facts indicating malice on the part of defendants in disclosing plaintiff’s records.

  • Name

    COLLONDREZ V. CITY OF RIO VISTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS052922

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

Invasion of privacy: Defendants contends that Plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy cause of action fails to state a cause of action for two reasons: (1) the California Supreme Court held in Hernandez v. Hillsides (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272 that an employer’s installation of a hidden video camera in an employee’s office to monitor employee’s misconduct was not actionable; and (2) Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace.

  • Name

    SANDY CONTRERAS VS. MOISES CASTANEDA

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00987774-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2018

Invasion of Privacy Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts for this cause of action against TransUnion. [A] plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (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. ( Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.

  • Name

    AUSTIN UTEDA, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    23STCV03484

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 28, 2017, asserting the following causes of action: (1) conspiracy; (2) invasion of privacy/intrusion; (3) invasion of privacy/false light; (4) invasion of privacy/recording of confidential information (Penal Code §§ 632 and 637.2); (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”); (7) defamation; (8) violation of Civil Code § 1708.8; (9) fraud; (10) violation of the Discovery

  • Name

    ORR V. TRAINA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV315153

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

.); the second COA for invasion of privacy; and the third COA for declaratory relief. Defendant moved to strike Paragraphs 6, 31, 41, 43, 45, and 52 and Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Prayer for Relief in Plaintiffs original Complaint. Procedure The Court noted that Defendant was added to the action through Doe Amendment on July 21, 2023. At that time, the operative pleading in the action was the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on February 3, 2023.

  • Name

    CARY SINGLETON, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    22VECV01307

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The demurrer to the third cause of action for invasion of privacy is sustained, with leave to amend. The arguments within the opposition were not alleged and merely taking one set of pictures of the property without any people would not be an actionable invasion of privacy. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for trespass is overruled. Defendants has alleged entry by Hass onto their property without permission. (SACC, ¶93.)

  • Name

    MARK A HASS VS. JOSHUA RANDALL CHATTEN BROWN

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016275-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

Sustain defendant FCS' demurrer as to the 1st invasion of privacy cause of action, probably without leave to amend --unless plaintiffs's counsel has an offer of proof as to how the pleading requirements could be met agaist FCS. (The proposed second amended complaint ("SAC")does not achieve that.) Preliminarily, this count is uncertain in that it is brought against both defendants, yet the invasion of privacy was done by defendant Moreaux alone. Invasion of privacy is an intentional tort.

  • Name

    ALYSSA MARTIN VS. FAMILY CHRISTIAN STORES, INC

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00385118-CU-PO-SIM

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2011

The proposed amended complaint alleges four causes of action for (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Violations of California Penal Code §§ 632, 637.2, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (4) Aiding and Abetting Invasion of Privacy. The complaint adds additional allegations against Alan Honig as Doe 1 as aiding and abetting Defendant. (Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 52-57.)

  • Name

    SCOTT KOONDEL VS STACI KOONDEL

  • Case No.

    21STCV17292

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy Plaintiffs cause of action for Invasion of Privacy alleges that Defendant invaded the Plaintiffs rights of privacy by obtaining investigative consumer reports about the Plaintiffs without complying with mandatory requirements under the ICAA [sic] for getting investigative reports about the Plaintiffs. (Comp. ¶ 61.)

  • Name

    SYDNEY ROSS, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    23STCV14371

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2023

The FAC cannot articulate wrongful conduct for invasion of privacy merely based on the alleged receipt of information. The FAC therefore fails to state facts supporting an invasion of privacy cause of action, and the demurrer is sustained for this reason. C.

  • Name

    BIANCA MCKINNEY VS LOUIS BACON ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC624474

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2017

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, the Supreme Court held in evaluating potential invasion of privacy, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances and a threatened intrusion that is serious.

  • Name

    SURINDER SINGH VS MUKHTIAR KAMBOJ ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC062073

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

He has filed a form complaint against Defendant, a nationwide television network, and its employees, asserting negligence and invasion of privacy The complaint contains only cursory supporting allegations.

  • Name

    KEITH ALLEN LEWIS AND TIM MATTHEWS, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1900869

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

Summary adjudication is denied as to plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim. A triable issue of fact exists regarding the seriousness of the alleged invasion of privacy. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 40 ["If the undisputed material facts show no reasonable expectation of privacy or an insubstantial impact on privacy interests, the question of invasion may be adjudicated as a matter of law."]; see also Strawn v.

  • Name

    DENNIS STRAWN ET AL VS. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16553558

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

The second cause of action for invasion of privacy is based in part upon the disclosure of Plaintiff’s personal and business emails toward the use in family law proceedings and for use in connection with the investigation of supposed criminal and fraudulent conduct by Jensen. 2AC, ¶ 38.

  • Name

    STEVEN JENSEN VS KRISTEN KERR ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC592726

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

Plaintiff may not combine this cause of action with her invasion of privacy claims. Privacy: There are four types of invasion of privacy claims: (1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; (2) appropriation of another's name or likeness; (3) unreasonable publicity given to another's private life; and (4) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public. ACS Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 137, 147, fn.3.

  • Name

    HICKS VS ALLADAWI

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00855698-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2016

Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 2. When did that marriage end? (Depo. p. 15: 2-4.) a. Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 3. Who is your immediate supervisor at Delta Airlines? (Depo. p. 19-20.) a. Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 4. Why did you go to Thailand in December 2022 for three weeks? (Depo. p. 63: 13-25.) a. Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy. 5.

  • Name

    ARIE WAISBARD, ET AL. VS MARIANE MUFIA BILOLO

  • Case No.

    22BBCV01268

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The allegations concerning conspiracy are only a portion of Plaintiff’s claim for invasion of privacy, and the negation of which is not fatal to Plaintiff’s claim as Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts showing violation of Pen. Code § 632 as discussed above. Because the conspiracy issue is not fatal to Plaintiff’s invasion of privacy claim, the Court cannot sustain a demurrer based on the conspiracy issue as argued by Defendant. D.

  • Name

    JOSE ONTIVEROS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ROSA HERRERA, AN INDIVIDUAL

  • Case No.

    17STLC02829

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT DEFENDANT VISTO CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT OVERRULE DEMURRER AS TO 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT, 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION EAVESDROPPING, 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION INVASION OF PRIVACY, 7TH CAUSE OF ACTION VOICE PRINT, AND 8TH CAUSE OF ACTION VOICE PRINT. 9TH CAUSE OF ACTION EXTORTION SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (302/JJM/RS)

  • Name

    MARSHALL BAUER VS. VISTO CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC02405672

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2002

The Court grants summary adjudication on the first cause of action for common law invasion of privacy and the second cause of action for constructive intrusion/invasion of privacy under CC 1708.8, and the fourth case of action for negligence per se. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that defendant's camera has not captured images of plaintiff's yard or the interior of her home. See declaration of Tony Chau, para. 13.; Plaintiff's response to special rog. #1.

  • Name

    SUSAN I. WOLFF VS. TONY CHAU ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC11516478

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2012

In regard to the Invasion of Privacy cause of action, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a prima facie case of invasion of privacy and the Demurrer to the Thirteenth Cause of Action is overruled. Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Causes of Action therefore the Court sustains the Demurrer to these causes of action without leave to amend. Counsel for the Defendants is to submit a revised form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.

  • Name

    RANDOLPH, TERESA VS TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL

  • Case No.

    19CV01226

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

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.’

  • Name

    SUSANA LOPEZ VS. VICTORIA CONRIQUE

  • Case No.

    VC065692

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The SAC alleges (1) negligence (against the District); (2) negligent hiring, retention & supervision (against the District); (3) common law invasion of privacy (against Riden); (4) Constitutional invasion of privacy (against the District); (5) Constitutional Invasion of Privacy (against Riden); (6) violation of Civil Code 1708.85 (against Riden); (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) (against Riden); and (8) (erroneously

  • Case No.

    2128630

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2023

  • County

    San Bernardino County, CA

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: 1) Violations of The California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq.; 2) Violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), Cal. Civ. Code § 56 et seq.; 3) Invasion of Privacy Under Article I, § 1 of the California Constitution; and 4) Common Law Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion. The demurrer to count 1 (CIPA) is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Name

    PORTER VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    37-2023-00011636-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2024

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Grove Care fails to support the objections regarding expert opinion, attorney-client or attorney work product privilege, burdensome or invasion of privacy.

  • Name

    BURTCH VS EMPIRECARE HEALTH ASSOCIATES INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1702898

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

Plaintiffs also argue that, with respect to the invasion of privacy claim, provision of the key to the apartment is essential but not sufficient to the invasion of privacy claim. Put differently, Plaintiffs contend that the gravamen of the invasion of privacy claim is that Defendants employed several methods to invade Plaintiffs privacy, including video surveillance and causing law enforcement to enter the unit. Defendants do not address these contentions in their reply.

  • Name

    EARL J. WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS WELLINGTON YANG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV03806

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DEFENDANTs JENNIFER CREELMAN, ALFRED DRIGGS, IV's DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT SUSTAINED as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy. Plaintiff fails to specifically state that Defendant entered into a space where Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend per statute. = (501/REQ)

  • Name

    RAJAN RAGHAVAN ET AL VS. JENNIFER CREELMAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16555223

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2017

Invasion of Privacy The allegations here are a repeat of the allegations supporting the alleged Violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. There is no allegation supporting an invasion of privacy. Negligence Defendant argues that plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action for professional negligence.

  • Name

    HOBSON VS VALLEY RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS MEDICAL GROUP INC

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00013276-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

The exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act do not necessarily bar the claim for invasion of privacy. (Operating Engineers Local 3 v. Johnson (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 180, 191–192.) Additionally, it is Southwestern Community College District's right to challenge whether a Government Tort Claim is required. The proposed cross-complaint shall be filed and served by December 17, 2018.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS. SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00006511-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2018

s demurrer to the 3rd cause of action for invasion of privacy and the 4th cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 1. As to the invasion of privacy claim, cross-complainant has not alleged facts showing the requisite elements of a claim of privacy based on a theory that Chase penetrated some zone of Mr. Lester's physical or sensory privacy. (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231; Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, 914.)

  • Name

    CHASE BANK USA, N.A. VS. EARL L LESTER

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00359775-CL-CL-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2010

Second Cause of Action: Invasion of Privacy The elements of a common law invasion of privacy claim are [1] intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter, [2] in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. Mezger v. Bick (2021) 66 Cal.App.5 th 76, 86. The first element is only satisfied if the defendant has intruded on a legally recognized privacy interest. Id. at 87. The presence of such an interest is a matter of law for the court to decide. Id.

  • Case No.

    23STCV2667

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Desai Demurrer/Motion to Strike Demurrer- Invasion of Privacy To survive demurrer, plaintiff need only plead ultimate facts constituting the cause of action. Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 606. To prevail on a cause of action for invasion of privacy, plaintiff must plead and prove intentional intrusion into an area in which plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272, 295.

  • Name

    JENNIFER KNIGHT VS RICHARD ELLENBOGEN, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV10353

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The 6/29/21 complaint of John Doe (no initials) pleads causes of action for 1) negligence; 2) negligent supervision; 3) negligent hiring/retention; 4) negligent failure to warn; 5) constructive fraud Civil Code § 1573); 6) breach of fiduciary duty; 7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 8) invasion of privacy; 9) invasion of privacy-intrusion of seclusion; 10) invasion of privacy- public disclosure of private facts; 11) gender violence; 12) commercial sexual exploitation

  • Name

    DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000648

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2023

Denied as to the request for punitive damages: The asserted basis of invasion of privacy in demanding private medical records without cause may support the claim for punitive damages. =(302/CK/AY)

  • Name

    JAMIE DAVIS VS. 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07464976

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2008

Invasion of Privacy (MILAGERDY AND DAVIS) The tort of “invasion of privacy” or “intrusion upon seclusion” 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 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231.)

  • Name

    BONNIE SCHREIBER VS CUCINA BENE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC661811

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

To the extent Plaintiffs are requesting an order allowing them to conduct a forensic examination of Defendant’s emails, the Court will deny this request as excessively broad and a probable invasion of privacy. Grant Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff the reasonable sum of $560.00 for bringing this motion ($250/hour x 2 hours, plus $60 in filing fees).

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    BC69826

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

DENY MOTION TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY, AND INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. THESE ARE NOT COMPULSORY CLAIMS AND ALLOWING THE AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY COMPLICATE THE REAL PROPERTY DISPUTE. =(302/PJM/AP)

  • Name

    ARKADY GORELIK ET AL VS. MIKHAIL GORELIK ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06456736

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2007

Defendants fail to address plaintiff's causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and invasion of privacy. Defendant has presented no responses to specifically targeted discovery allowing an inference that plaintiff neither possesses, nor reasonbly can obtain, evidence to support her causes of action. Since burden has not shifted, court need not rule on parties evidentiary objections. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    JANE ROE VS. CLIFT HOLDINGS, LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09486823

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2010

The original Complaint alleged causes of action for (1) violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, (2) invasion of privacy, and (3) declaratory relief. On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for (1) violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, (2) invasion of privacy, and (3) declaratory relief. Equity demurs to the second and third causes of action of the Complaint.

  • Name

    LAWRENCE VALLELY, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    23STCV16284

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The demurrer to the third cause of action for invasion of privacy is sustained, without leave to amend. Under the facts alleged in this property dispute, taking pictures of the property without any people while on the Hass's own property, would not be an actionable invasion of privacy. Cross-defendants did not demur to the fourth cause of action for trespass. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is sustained, without leave to amend.

  • Name

    MARK A HASS VS. JOSHUA RANDALL CHATTEN BROWN

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016275-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

Where there would be a serious invasion of privacy, the Court must balance the interests of the parties. (Id. at 370-371.) Defendant has the burden to show there would be a serious invasion of privacy. (Id.) Here, Defendant has not shown there would be a serious invasion of privacy as the private information would be redacted. Even if Defendant had shown the discovery would invade the privacy of non-parties, it is not clear the right to privacy outweighs the relevancy of the information.

  • Name

    ANGELICA ROMERO VS. PANCHO VILLAS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00024156-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

The Court already determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for invasion of privacy. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants demurrer as to the third cause of action with leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

  • Name

    CARY SINGLETON, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    22VECV01307

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In opposition, Defendant Deflores argues that “Plaintiff’s instant application is too premature [sic] in that Plaintiff has failed to prove tortious conduct on the part of the Defendant because both the negligence and invasion of privacy claims have yet to be adjudicated before a court of law.” (Opp., p. 2:4-8.)

  • Name

    JOHN GEARY VS HI-TEK AUTO PROTECTION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV06316

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

The Complaint alleged two causes of action against QVC: general negligence (lst COA) and invasion of privacy (2nd COA). QVC demurs to the general negligence cause of action on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10(e). Specifically QVC asserts that the elements of a cause of action for negligence are: duty, breach of duty, legal cause; and damages.

  • Name

    KEITH ALLEN LEWIS, SR. VS» LORI GRENIER, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1901005

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2019

Second COA (Invasion of Privacy): Issues Four through Five: Invasion of Privacy: As discussed above, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the invasion of privacy is justified by a competing interest and/or whether Cross-Complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, motions for summary adjudication of issues four and five are denied. Prayer for Statutory Damages: As discussed above, there is a triable issue of fact as to Cross-Complainants’ cause of action under CIPA.

  • Name

    OROZCO VS. ALUMINUM PRECISION PROD

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00919000-

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

Bick (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 76, 86-87 [elements of cause of action for invasion of privacy]; Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.th 245, 262 [elements of cause of action for trespass].)

  • Name

    JOHN DAMIANI VS HLS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV02402

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

“‘[A] plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (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.’” (Barbee, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at 530 (quoting Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 39-40).)

  • Name

    NORA ESCOBEDO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC703736

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

Puerto further explains, [o]n the second question, whether there is a serious invasion of privacy, Pioneer is instructive. While the trial court here implicitly found that a serious invasion of privacy would result unless an opt-in notice was used, we believe that conclusion is unsupported by facts or law.

  • Name

    FERNANDO HARRIS VS US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC [EFILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00014759-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

Second Cause of Action, Invasion of Privacy : SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. To allege an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right, a plaintiff must establish each of the following: (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. ( Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40 ( Hill ).)

  • Name

    JASON GUNNELS, , ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV17235

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Invasion of Privacy Cross-Defendant argues that Cross-Complainants have failed to state a claim because there is no common law invasion of privacy for corporations. The elements of such a cause of action 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.” ( Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 986, 990.)

  • Name

    MIRAE KIM VS JC TRADE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30024

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Although former Volcom employee Pedro Martin has a legally protected privacy interest in his personal contact information, the disclosure of such information is not a serious invasion of privacy. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252-1254.) Martin, a named defendant, is identified as having critical knowledge concerning the events at issue in this action. The disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses is a routine and essential part of the discovery process.

  • Name

    NIETO VS. VOLCOM, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00840213-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

The Complaint alleges invasion of privacy, negligence, premises liability and negligent hiring, supervision and retention. This case is referred to the Supervising Judge in Department 1, Stanley Mosk Courthouse for determination whether this case should be transferred and reassigned to an Independent Calendar Court. The motion for summary adjudication will not be heard in Department 28 on March 29, 2021.

  • Case No.

    F18STCV01351

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On August 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraud; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Elder Financial Abuse; (6) Invasion of Privacy (Count 1); (7) Invasion of Privacy (Count 2); (8) Violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.; (9) Negligence Per Se; and (10) Accounting.

  • Name

    AMRAM YAHALOM, ET AL. VS NAZARET CHAKRIAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20VECV00489

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

Defendant seeks summary adjudication of the request for punitive damages asserted as to four causes of action (breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, statutory invasion of privacy and trespass). A claim for punitive damages requires "clear and convincing" evidence that defendant has been guilty of "oppression, fraud or malice" in the commission of a tort. Civ.C. § 3294(a).

  • Name

    BROWN VS. THE RANCH AT CARLSBAD OWNERS ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00026218-CU-BC-NC

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2017

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.

  • Name

    ALICE JUNE DAVIDSON VS ANDREA LIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19BBCV00330

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

Special Interrogatories nos. 32-34 lack of relevance, burden and invasion of privacy of defendant Smith and third parties; c. Special Interrogatories nos.35-36 for lack of relevance; d. Special Interrogatories nos. 37-55 for failure to serve a declaration for additional discovery under CCP Section 2030.040(a); e. Requests for Production nos. 17-30 for lack of relevance, overbreadth, burden and invasion of privacy; f. Requests for Production nos. 31-46 and 48-51 for lack of relevance; g.

  • Name

    ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. SCOTT SMITH ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13530730

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2016

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope