What is CA's Wiretapping Law?

Useful Rulings on Wiretapping Law

Recent Rulings on Wiretapping Law

KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

In this case, Plaintiff has alleged, and Defendants have not disproven, that Ruiz recorded the telephone call between her and Plaintiff in violation of Penal Code section 632. Plaintiff explains that he believed the telephone call was private and confidential based on his years of dealing with EFD personnel. (Bisel Decl. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff states that he did not know that Ruiz was recording the telephone call. (Bisel Decl. ¶ 41.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASTRID G NELSON MEGEL ET AL VS THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Recording a conversation without consent of all parties to the conversation is a violation of Penal Code § 632(a). Evidence obtained as a result of the recording is inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Penal Code § 632(d). Plaintiffs seek sanctions under CCP § 2023.010, 2023.020, and 2023.030. All of these relate to a misuse of the discovery process. The recordings were made before this action was filed. Therefore, the recordings cannot amount to a misuse of the discovery process.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WAGNER VS DELISI WAGNERS MOTION TO RECONSIDER & REVOKE COURT RULINGS GRANTING DELISIS MOTION BY ALLAN WAGNER

Wagner now claims that Defendant’s counsel violated Penal Code section 632 by recording a phone call they had with Wagner. Even if this were true, it is not a new fact that relates to the prior motion to change venue and in no way affects whether this case should be heard in Riverside or San Diego County. Furthermore, this “fact” was available to Wagner at the time of the hearing, as he received Attorney Ibach’s declaration as part of the motion for change of venue prior to the hearing.

  • Hearing

FAIRMONT RIDING VS. PESTANA

Both of these defenses are based on plaintiffs’ alleged violation of Penal Code § 632 in recording the statements that Pestana made at the pizza parlor on March 1, 2017.

  • Hearing

NOBIA JOYCE VS SHAWN M. MILLNER

The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), filed on December 9, 2015, asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2 On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the second and third causes of action, without prejudice. On July 5, 2018, a “Stipulation Re: Settlement” was filed; that day, the court ordered the action “dismissed with prejudice pursuant to CCP Section 664.6, with the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.”

  • Hearing

NOBIA JOYCE VS SHAWN M. MILLNER

The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), filed on December 9, 2015, asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2 On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the second and third causes of action, without prejudice. On July 5, 2018, a “Stipulation Re: Settlement” was filed; that day, the court ordered the action “dismissed with prejudice pursuant to CCP Section 664.6, with the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.”

  • Hearing

JON CRITTENDEN VS LAURA A LAMBERT

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lambert and Does 1-20 for: Statutory Violations of California Penal Code Section 632 et seq. A Case Management Conference is set for September 15, 2020. 1. Leave File Answer-In-Intervention Legal Standard “An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by . . . [j]oining a plaintiff . . . , [u]niting with a defendant . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVID WHITCROFT VS BEN MACPERSON, ET AL.

Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 446 (allegations of defendant engaged in wiretapping activity did was not protected activity as a matter of law); Cohen v. Brown (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 302, 317–318 (explicit threats to report attorney to the state bar and make his life a “living hell” unless attorney immediately signed off on a settlement check); Mendoza v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PHAM VS. MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

Further, Defendant has not established how these recordings are inadmissible under Penal Code section 632, when they were recorded under the exemption found under section 632. Pen. Code §§ 632, 633; See Telish v.

  • Hearing

MEACHAM VS. EL POLLO LOCO, INC.

Likewise, the language of Penal Code section 632 is expressly broad in prohibiting the eavesdropping or recording of communications “in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio.” (Penal Code § 632, emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

JON CRITTENDEN VS LAURA A LAMBERT

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lambert and Does 1-20 for: Statutory Violations of California Penal Code Section 632 et seq. A Case Management Conference is set for September 1, 2020. 1. Leave File Answer-In-Intervention Legal Standard “An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by . . . [j]oining a plaintiff . . . , [u]niting with a defendant . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HENRY POE VS PIONEER MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Plaintiff includes a claim for violation of Penal Code § 632, but does not provide any facts in support. Further, it is unclear what controversy exists for which declaratory relief is requested. Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

Penal Code §632(a) imposes criminal liability on, “Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication…” Penal Code §632(c) defines “confidential communication” as “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication

  • Hearing

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Penal Code section 637.2, subdivision (a), allows a person who has been injured by a violation of Penal Code section 632 to bring an action against the person who committed the violation. Plaintiff again alleges Defendants installed surveillance equipment focused on Plaintiff’s property to capture video and audio of Plaintiff’s property, without his consent. (FAC ¶¶ 110-113.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LOUIS LOZANO, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Penal Code section 632 has no relevance to Petitioners’ moving arguments made under the City Charter. Respondents have not addressed Penal Code section 632 in their “objections” and have not waived the procedural defect. Accordingly, the court does not reach Petitioners’ reply arguments related to Penal Code section 632. Even if the court were to consider this argument, Petitioners do not show, with evidence, that their communications were “confidential” within the meaning of section 632(c).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RETROVIROX INC VS THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Penal Code § 632 provides, insofar as relevant here, as follows: a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

A violation of California Penal Code section 631 requires an unauthorized connection to the transmission line, and such has not been alleged in the FACC, nor can Harmon-Perry allege it; 2.

  • Hearing

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Further, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant News Corp engaged in wiretapping or other criminal conduct relating to this action, nor have they offered uncontroverted and uncontested evidence that establishes the illegality of Defendant’s actions. Therefore, the Court finds that the narrow exception articulated in Flately does not apply.

  • Hearing

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Further, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant News Corp engaged in wiretapping or other criminal conduct relating to this action, nor have they offered uncontroverted and uncontested evidence that establishes the illegality of Defendant’s actions. Therefore, the Court finds that the narrow exception articulated in Flately does not apply.

  • Hearing

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Further, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant News Corp engaged in wiretapping or other criminal conduct relating to this action, nor have they offered uncontroverted and uncontested evidence that establishes the illegality of Defendant’s actions. Therefore, the Court finds that the narrow exception articulated in Flately does not apply.

  • Hearing

MELITHIA BUTLER VS PRIME HEALTHCARE CENTINELA, LLC DBA CENTINELA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

Indeed, under certain circumstances, even if deemed inadmissible pursuant to Penal Code § 632(d), the recording might nonetheless be permissibly used at trial, including for impeachment. (See id. at 1497.) In any event, even if the recording were deemed a confidential communication otherwise subject to exclusion under § 632(d), the recording would appear to be exempt from § 632(d)’s exclusion pursuant to Penal Code § 633.5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HARDIN V. JOHNSTON

Plaintiff alleges in his opposition that Defendant instructed the minor child to conduct the recordings and is therefore and aider and abettor pursuant to Penal Code section 632. However, Penal Code section 633.5 does not prohibit a person from being recorded when that person reasonably believes that the party being recorded is engaged in domestic violence.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Patrick M

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

CHARLES LUKE VS THE SERVICE WAREHOUSE INC

Penal Code § 632: Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to prevail because Defendant violated Penal Code § 632.

  • Hearing

SANDRA MEZGER ET AL VS RANDY RALPH BICK JR ET AL

As explained below, Plaintiffs have not met their burden in showing such communications at issue were confidential under California Penal Code, Section 632. Analysis The Court finds that there no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to whether the communications of the Mezgers recorded by Bick were confidential under California Penal Code, Section 632. The Court finds that such communications of Plaintiffs at issue are not confidential for purposes of California Penal Code, Section 632.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.