Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“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:
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.
Four kinds of activities have been found to violate the constitutional right to privacy and give rise to tort liability:
Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129.
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:
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.
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.
“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.
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.
HIGGINS VS. DOES 1 TO 250
30-2018-01016374-CU-DF-CJC
Dec 03, 2018
Orange 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.
JUAN CASTRO ET AL VS KEVIN SUK M D ET AL
BC710866
Dec 11, 2020
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
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.)
SYDNEY ROSS, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
23STCV14371
Jan 31, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALPAY V. ALVORD
30-2019-01064196
Oct 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
RITA MOCHALOVA, ET AL. VS TV PRO GEAR, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21GDCV01027
Oct 29, 2021
Los Angeles 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.)
TABLER VS SUTTER HEALTH
RG20064439
Jan 04, 2021
Noël Wise
Alameda County, CA
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.
TABLER VS SUTTER HEALTH
RG20064439
Jan 04, 2021
Noël Wise
Alameda 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.
HEZZACK DANIELS VS. RECOLOGY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL
CGC10502563
Dec 12, 2012
San Francisco County, CA
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.]
DAVID BARROSO VS U EVOLUTION LLC
BC628610
May 24, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
DENNIS STRAWN ET AL VS. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
CGC16553558
Nov 09, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
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.
PATRICK THOMPSON VS. JASPER ENGINES AND TRANSMISSIONS
56-2018-00509649-CU-DF-VTA
Dec 20, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
SYLVANA I MCGRAW VS LAPD
21STCV06837
Dec 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
NATANIA CHETRIT VS JEFFREY ALLEN LEVE
19STCV06169
Aug 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Punitive damages are alleged in support of the nuisance claim and the invasion of privacy claim.
LIZA CANNIZZARO VS LAURA LARSON
BC712834
Apr 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
VIVIAN TU BANH VS IVONNE V QUINTEROS
BC554916
Dec 06, 2017
Los Angeles 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.)
ELDER, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
23CV031630
Dec 13, 2023
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.)
LOZA, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
23CV030619
Dec 13, 2023
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.)
TURNER, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
23CV032912
Dec 13, 2023
Alameda County, CA
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.
MARQUIS CROSBY, ET AL. VS ONNI MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.
23STCV30852
Feb 26, 2024
Los Angeles 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.
BAPTISTE VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
37-2022-00012259-CU-OE-CTL
Aug 11, 2023
San Diego 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.
SHULMAN VS BENNELONG USA LLC
37-2019-00009420-CU-BC-CTL
Sep 10, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
MONTIA SABBAG VS KEVIN HART, ET AL.
20STCV16533
Apr 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
sexual exploitation of a minor; (13) constructive invasion of privacy; and (14) distribution of sexually explicit materials.
DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY
CVRI2000648
Feb 07, 2023
Riverside 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.
LYFT, INC VS. TRAVIS VANDERZANDEN ET AL
CGC14542554
Mar 03, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
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.
VICTOR SAUZA VS BRIAN SCHRIEBER ET AL
NC060666
Nov 02, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
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
PSC1902488
Aug 31, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
ANDREWS V. HESS
30-2019-01078309
Dec 04, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
MEHRAN FORUTAN VS. RAHIM BIDGOLI
56-2009-00338918-CU-BC-SIM
Aug 07, 2009
Ventura County, CA
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.
KLEIN VS. NYAMATHI
56-2009-00335844-CU-OR-SIM
Apr 20, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
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.
CHASE BANK USA NA VS. MA S ALEJO
56-2009-00363057-CL-CL-SIM
Apr 23, 2010
Ventura County, CA
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.
ANDREWS V. HESS
30-2019-01078309
Jul 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
of privacy; and 16th cause of action for intentional invasion of privacy.
NATALIA KHORUZHENKO VS. ALAN WU KONG TAN, ET AL
CGC11514760
Nov 04, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
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.
ROBIN SMITH, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
23STCV00072
Jan 31, 2024
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.)
SYDNEY ROSS, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
23STCV14371
Sep 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ARIE WAISBARD, ET AL. VS MARIANE MUFIA BILOLO
22BBCV01268
Jan 26, 2024
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
ORR V. TRAINA, ET AL.
17CV315153
Jun 20, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
AUSTIN UTEDA, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
23STCV03484
Mar 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
OROZCO VS. ALUMINUM PRECISION PROD
30-2017-00919000-
Mar 20, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
COLLONDREZ V. CITY OF RIO VISTA, ET AL.
FCS052922
Oct 22, 2019
Solano County, CA
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.
SANDY CONTRERAS VS. MOISES CASTANEDA
30-2018-00987774-CU-OE-CJC
Nov 01, 2018
Orange County, CA
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).
ROBERT ERINGER ET AL VS MEGA GROUP PRIVATE ETC ET AL
1415580
May 29, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
JEFFREY ITO VS COMPOSITES HORIZONS, LLC
23PSCV00546
May 09, 2023
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.)
M. PAUL HUMPHREYS V. COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER;MARISSA P. DIZON, R.N.; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
17CECG01068
Dec 05, 2017
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
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.
BRENDA BROUSSARD VS RANDAL D. HAWORTH, ET AL.
19STCV26105
Oct 25, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action are: 1) False Light Invasion of Privacy; and 2) Misappropriation of Name Invasion of Privacy. Defendants demur to both claims of the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. LEGAL STANDARD Demurrers are to be sustained where a pleading fails to plead adequately any essential element of the cause of action. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879-880.
YOLANDA CASSIDY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.
23STCV15718
Apr 16, 2024
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. Plaintiff alleges the defendants clandestinely recorded Plaintiff as he masturbated in his prison cell.
KEITH ALLEN LEWIS AND TIM MATTHEWS, ET AL
CV1900869
Aug 08, 2019
STEPHEN P, FRECCERO
Marin County, CA
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.
EDWARD SCOTT VS RADFORD ALEXANDER CORPORATION ET AL
BC618893
Oct 27, 2016
Los Angeles 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.
GREG TUCKER VS. TOD E HOFMEISTER
56-2010-00371472-CU-PO-VTA
Aug 24, 2010
Ventura 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.)
PATRICK THOMPSON VS. JASPER ENGINES AND TRANSMISSIONS
56-2018-00509649-CU-DF-VTA
Aug 24, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.)
SYDNEY ROSS, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
23STCV14371
Oct 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BIANCA MCKINNEY VS LOUIS BACON ET AL
BC624474
May 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
ALYSSA MARTIN VS. FAMILY CHRISTIAN STORES, INC
56-2010-00385118-CU-PO-SIM
May 03, 2011
Ventura County, CA
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.)
SCOTT KOONDEL VS STACI KOONDEL
21STCV17292
Dec 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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)
ALLEN R SIMPSON VS. BANK OF AMERICA
CGC01402367
Jul 25, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
.); 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.
CARY SINGLETON, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
22VECV01307
Feb 27, 2024
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.)
MARK A HASS VS. JOSHUA RANDALL CHATTEN BROWN
37-2017-00016275-CU-OR-CTL
Nov 29, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
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.
SURINDER SINGH VS MUKHTIAR KAMBOJ ET AL
EC062073
Dec 08, 2017
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.
KEITH ALLEN LEWIS AND TIM MATTHEWS, ET AL
CV1900869
Jul 30, 2019
Marin County, CA
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.
DENNIS STRAWN ET AL VS. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
CGC16553558
Jun 25, 2021
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.
STEVEN JENSEN VS KRISTEN KERR ET AL
BC592726
Sep 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
ARIE WAISBARD, ET AL. VS MARIANE MUFIA BILOLO
22BBCV01268
Mar 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HICKS VS ALLADAWI
30-2016-00855698-CU-BT-CJC
Sep 30, 2016
Orange 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.
JOSE ONTIVEROS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ROSA HERRERA, AN INDIVIDUAL
17STLC02829
Jun 11, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
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
2128630
Jan 30, 2023
San Bernardino County, CA
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.’
SUSANA LOPEZ VS. VICTORIA CONRIQUE
VC065692
Aug 31, 2017
Los Angeles 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.
PORTER VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
37-2023-00011636-CU-NP-CTL
Feb 02, 2024
San Diego County, CA
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.
RANDOLPH, TERESA VS TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL
19CV01226
Sep 11, 2019
Butte County, CA
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.
SUSAN I. WOLFF VS. TONY CHAU ET AL
CGC11516478
Nov 07, 2012
San Francisco County, CA
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.
EARL J. WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS WELLINGTON YANG, ET AL.
22STCV03806
Jun 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HOBSON VS VALLEY RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS MEDICAL GROUP INC
37-2022-00013276-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 20, 2023
San Diego 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)
MARSHALL BAUER VS. VISTO CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL
CGC02405672
Oct 10, 2002
San Francisco 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.
JENNIFER KNIGHT VS RICHARD ELLENBOGEN, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
21STCV10353
Mar 23, 2023
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
DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY
CVRI2000648
Jan 27, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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.
23STCV2667
Mar 07, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
CHASE BANK USA, N.A. VS. EARL L LESTER
56-2009-00359775-CL-CL-SIM
Apr 29, 2010
Ventura County, CA
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.)
BONNIE SCHREIBER VS CUCINA BENE INC ET AL
BC661811
Jan 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Grove Care fails to support the objections regarding expert opinion, attorney-client or attorney work product privilege, burdensome or invasion of privacy.
BURTCH VS EMPIRECARE HEALTH ASSOCIATES INC
RIC1702898
Jul 17, 2018
Riverside 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)
RAJAN RAGHAVAN ET AL VS. JENNIFER CREELMAN ET AL
CGC16555223
May 10, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
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.
FERNANDO HARRIS VS US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC [EFILE]
37-2015-00014759-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 27, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
KEITH ALLEN LEWIS, SR. VS» LORI GRENIER, ET AL
CV1901005
Jul 05, 2019
Marin County, CA
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.
OROZCO VS. ALUMINUM PRECISION PROD
30-2017-00919000-
Feb 26, 2019
Orange 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.)
JOHN GEARY VS HI-TEK AUTO PROTECTION, ET AL.
19STCV06316
Jul 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
CARY SINGLETON, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
22VECV01307
Jan 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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].)
JOHN DAMIANI VS HLS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23STCV02402
Oct 20, 2023
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).)
NORA ESCOBEDO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC703736
May 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
JANE DOE VS. SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
37-2017-00006511-CU-OE-CTL
Dec 06, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
ANGELICA ROMERO VS. PANCHO VILLAS INC
37-2018-00024156-CU-OE-CTL
Jan 10, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
MIRAE KIM VS JC TRADE, INC., ET AL.
20STCV30024
Feb 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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 ).)
JASON GUNNELS, , ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV17235
Oct 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
LAWRENCE VALLELY, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
23STCV16284
Nov 15, 2023
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.
MARK A HASS VS. JOSHUA RANDALL CHATTEN BROWN
37-2017-00016275-CU-OR-CTL
May 02, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
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)
JAMIE DAVIS VS. 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL
CGC07464976
Apr 01, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
It is unclear whether the Complaint prays for injunctive relief as to the invasion of privacy claim, and thus unclear whether Defendants motion requests to strike such relief. Regardless, considering the Courts ruling sustaining the demurrer on the invasion of privacy claim the motion would be moot.
WAYAN PALMIERI, ET AL. VS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
22BBCV00656
Jan 18, 2023
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
INVASION OF PRIVACY Stoneyhill and Crest offer several arguments against Plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claim, which this court will address in turn. 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.)
NATHAN JOHNSON ET AL VS STONEYHILL SECURITY ASSOCIATION ET A
BC634432
Nov 27, 2017
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.
AMRAM YAHALOM, ET AL. VS NAZARET CHAKRIAN, ET AL.
20VECV00489
Dec 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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).
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
BC69826
Apr 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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)
JANE ROE VS. CLIFT HOLDINGS, LLC ET AL
CGC09486823
Feb 22, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
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)
ARKADY GORELIK ET AL VS. MIKHAIL GORELIK ET AL
CGC06456736
Jun 07, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
Conclusion on res judicata For the foregoing reasons, res judicata can be applied to the invasion of privacy claim. The demurrer is therefore be sustained, without leave to amend. 3. Invasion of Privacy Apart from the res judicata analysis, Defendant Synchrony demurs to the invasion of privacy claim on grounds that it is preempted by federal law, and that Plaintiff cannot state the elements for an invasion of privacy claim, as a matter of law. a.
JAMES E ELIAS VS SYNCHRONY BANK
BC555883
Oct 13, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff Joanclair Richter commenced this action against Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and on April 7, 2021, filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) for (1) violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 632; and (2) violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 632.7.
JOANCLAIR RICHTER VS PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
20STLC10694
Aug 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.