What is CA's Wiretapping Law?

Useful Rulings on Wiretapping Law

Recent Rulings on Wiretapping Law

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

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Jul 02, 2020

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

    Jun 26, 2020

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

    Jun 26, 2020

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

    Jun 26, 2020

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

    Jun 23, 2020

  • 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

    Jun 03, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 28, 2020

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

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AARON KWESKIN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. RONNIE CHARLES KING

Penal Code § 631 does not appear to apply to the circumstances, as the recording did not involve any wiretap (or similar activity) of the conversation with Carlos. Penal Code § 632 may very well apply if King recorded his conversation with Carlos without consent. But even if King violated Penal Code § 632, thereby potentially rendering the recording inadmissible under subsection 632(d), the recording is still discoverable, as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

JOHNSTON V. KRAUSE

Penal Code §632(a) prohibits the intentional recording of confidential communications without the consent of the parties to those communications.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

BR MARKETING, INC. V. RUSKEY

Based on the lack of opposition it appears that Defendants (Chad Ruskey, Ronald Ruskey, Brian Groff, Deirdre Mammano, Business Solutions, LLC dba AD.IQ, and Employer Advertising, LLC dba BeRanked and AD.IQ), concede that video recordings possessed by Chad Ruskey are inadmissible under Penal Code section 632, subdivision (d). Also, based on the lack of opposition, Defendants appear to concede that the court has the authority to issue the requested protective order under Continental Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

PLANNET CONSULTING VS. HOWARD

It encompasses unconsented-to physical intrusion into the home, hospital room or other place the privacy of which is legally recognized, as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying. (See Rest.2d Torts, § 652B, com. b., pp. 378–379, and illustrations.) Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 230–31.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

SANDRA MEZGER ET AL VS RANDY RALPH BICK JR ET AL

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) nuisance; (2) violation of California Penal Code, Section 632; (3) invasion of common law right of privacy; (4) invasion of California constitutional right of privacy; (5) invasion of privacy, false light; and (6) nuisance in violation of municipal code.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THIER V. FARAH

Penal Code §637.2 actually provides a civil cause of action for eavesdropping, but the relevant statute that we have to look at for the elements of the offense are found in Penal Code §632.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

SANDRA MEZGER ET AL VS RANDY RALPH BICK JR ET AL

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) nuisance; (2) violation of California Penal Code, Section 632; (3) invasion of common law right of privacy; (4) invasion of California constitutional right of privacy; (5) invasion of privacy, false light; and (6) nuisance in violation of municipal code.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN CALLAN, ET AL. V. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.

Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert claims for (1) violations of CIPA, Penal Code section 630 et seq., (2) violations of the New Hampshire Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Statute, New Hampshire Revised Statutes 570-A:2, (3) violations of the Florida Wiretap Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq., (4) violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat § 5703 et seq.,4 (5) violations of the Maryland Wiretap Act, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of Penal Code § 632 and (2) violation of Penal Code § 632.7. The motion for summary adjudication of issue one is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of Penal Code § 632 and (2) violation of Penal Code § 632.7. The motion for summary adjudication of issue one is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of Penal Code § 632 and (2) violation of Penal Code § 632.7. The motion for summary adjudication of issue one is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARIA AHUMADA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs argue that because they have asserted a cause of action for violation of California Penal Code, Section 632, the recordings are necessarily admissible as evidence in the trial on Plaintiffs’ complaint; however, Griffin’s cross-complaint is not an action for violation of Penal Code Section 632, so that the recordings are not admissible in the trial on her cross-complaint. Plaintiffs argue that if the trials on the complaint and cross-complaint were held together: (1) Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

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

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion is meritless because Defendants’ motion is based on inadmissible evidence, viz., the recording and evidence obtained therefrom in violation of Penal Code section 632(d). (Opp. at 13.) This argument has no validity because Defendants did not need to submit evidence to satisfy their initial burden.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ABDELGADER V. VILLA LUCIA

It encompasses unconsented-to physical intrusion into the home, hospital room or other place the privacy of which is legally recognized, as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying.” (Id. at 230-231.) “The action for intrusion has two elements: (1) intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter, (2) in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (Id. at 231.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHANG ROK KIM VS GEON OH SEO ET AL

Defendants argue that violation of Penal Code § 632 is not a valid cause of action. Defendants additionally assert that Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and unintelligible. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the sixth cause of action is a valid cause of action for violations of California Penal Code § 632 and § 637.2. Plaintiff contends that contrary to the claims in Defendants' demurrer, violation of Penal Code § 632 is a valid cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

JOHNSTON V. KRAUSE

Motion by Plaintiff Mary Jane Nicolas-Carrion for Summary Judgment, or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of 5 Affirmative Defenses TENTATIVE RULING Penal Code §632(a) prohibits the intentional recording of confidential communications without the consent of the parties to those communications. There are 2 audio recordings at issue in the motion filed by Plaintiff MARY JANE NICOLAS-CARRION (“NICOLAS-CARRION”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.