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 Invasion of Privacy Act, enacted in 1967 with subsequent amendments, is encoded at Penal Code § 630, et seq. It prohibits wiretapping, and also bars a person from recording a conversation with another absent the other person's knowledge and consent. (Penal Code § 632.)
The qualifier is that it applies only if the call includes a "confidential communication," which has been defined to be where a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. (Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768.) “There is no service-observation exception for recording... recording a call for "Quality Control" is not exempt from the Privacy Act.” (Knight v. Cashcall (2011) 200 Cal. App.4th 1377, 1392-93.) There is no exception even if the monitoring is for a legitimate business purpose.
“Whether there exists a reasonable expectation that no one is secretly recording or listening to a telephone conversation is generally a question of fact.” (Kearney v. Salomon-Smith Barney, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 95, 118 n.10; Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 169.)
“We also find support for the Frio definition of "confidential communication" in the actions of the Legislature when it amended the Privacy Act to take account of privacy issues raised by the increased use of cellular and cordless telephones.” (Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 775 examining § 632.5, added by Stats. 1985, ch. 909, § 3, at 2902; § 632.6, added by Stats. 1990, ch. 696, § 4, at 3269; § 632.7 ...) “In enacting the first of these amendments, the Legislature found that ‘the advent of widespread use of cellular radio telephone technology means that persons will be conversing over a network which cannot guarantee privacy in the same way that it is guaranteed over landline systems.’” (Id. citing Stats. 1985, ch. 909, § 2, at 2900; similar language as to cordless telephones appears in Stats. 1990, ch. 696, § 2, p. 3268.) (Id. at 776 ) “Responding to the problem of protecting the privacy of parties to calls involving cellular or cordless telephones, the Legislature prohibited the malicious interception of calls from or to cellular or cordless phones (§§ 632.5, 632.6) and the intentional interception or recording of a communication involving a cellular phone or a cordless phone.” (Id. citing § 632.7.)
Penal Code § 631, subdivision (a): any person who, by means of some mechanical device or contrivance, “intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection with,” inter alia, a telephone instrument, or who willfully, and without the consent of all parties to the communication, learns the contents of any communication while it is passing over any wire, line, or cable, or attempts to use any information so obtained, violates the statute.
Penal Code § 632, subdivision (a): anyone 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, 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, violates this statute. (Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 161.)
Penal Code § 632.5, subdivision (a): anyone who “maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between any cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone” violates this statute.
Under § 632.7 (applicable to recording, listening to cell-phone communications), enacted in 1992 all that is required there is a nonconsensual invasion. No requirement for a "confidential" communication.
The law provides a civil remedy of $5,000 in liquidated damages for each violation. (Penal Code § 637.2.) There does not have to be any disclosure to a third party to trigger the statutory liability; the invasion itself is sufficient. (Flanagan, supra at 775.) Actual damages are not a prerequisite to bringing suit for a violation of §§ 632, 632.7.
“To establish the common law tort of intrusion, a plaintiff must plead and prove ultimate facts establishing:
(Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal .4th 272, 286)
“Of the four privacy torts identified by Prosser, the tort of intrusion into private places, conversations or matter is perhaps the one that best captures the common understanding of an ‘invasion of privacy.’” 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. (Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 230–31 citing Rest.2d Torts, § 652B, com. b., pp. 378–379, and illustrations.)
At this demurrer stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a claim for violation of Penal Code section 632 against Defendant.
JOANCLAIR RICHTER VS PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
20STLC10694
Aug 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Invasion of Privacy Act, enacted in 1967 which subsequent amendments, is encoded at Penal Code § 630, et seq. It prohibits wiretapping, and also bars a person from recording a conversation with another absent the other person's knowledge and consent. Penal Code § 632.
ALEX URBAN VS. EVENFLO COMPANY
56-2012-00422285-CU-BT-VTA
Mar 04, 2013
Ventura County, CA
First Cause of Action for Violation of Penal Code Section 631(a) Penal Code § 631(a) imposes liability upon any entity that by means of any machine, instrument, contrivance, or in any other manner, (1) intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or (2) willfully
JOSE LICEA VS THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23STCV02964
Jul 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
C 22-03780 WHA, 2022 WL 17869275, at *2 (finding "the first clause of Section 631(a) concerns telephonic wiretapping specifically, which does not apply to the context of the internet"). Plaintiff's misinterpretation appears to occur because Plaintiff blurs the lines between the Federal Wiretap Act and California Penal Code Section 631. (Opposition Memorandum ("Opp. Memo") 15:8 - 28).
37-2023-00005775-CU-CR-CTL
Jul 14, 2023
San Diego County, CA
First Cause of Action – Penal Code Section 631 The first cause of action does not allege sufficient facts to constitute a violation of Penal Code section 631. The California Invasion of Privacy Act is California's anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in order "to protect the right of privacy." (Penal Code, § 630.)
37-2023-00016676-CU-MT-CTL
Feb 02, 2024
San Diego County, CA
Plaintiff does not need to alleged any financial injury resulting from the alleged interception because Penal Code section 637.2 authorizes a civil action to redress a violation of Penal Code section 631 for the greater or $5,000.00 or three times the actual damages, “if any.” Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate standing. The demurrer on this ground is overruled.
DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CIVSB2224245
Jul 19, 2023
San Bernardino County, CA
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.
AARON KWESKIN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. RONNIE CHARLES KING
EC066951
Feb 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Natale argues that this fails to allege a claim for wiretapping under Penal Code section 631. Penal Code section 632 makes it unlawful to intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, use an amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication. Penal Code section 632 prohibits the intentional eavesdropping to a confidential communication by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, without the consent of all parties.
HESPER NATALE, ET AL V. TERI HARMON-PERRY
19CV-0252
Mar 18, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Analysis: First cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 630, et seq. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failto state a claim for violation of the CIPA because Facebook was a party to the communications that were allegedly intercepted. (See Rogers v. Ulrich (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 [“only a third party can listen to what is said in private”].) The Court is not persuaded.
BUSTOS VS RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CLINIC
CVRI2203466
Jan 30, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Analysis: First cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 630, et seq. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failto state a claim for violation of the CIPA because Facebook was a party to the communications that were allegedly intercepted. (See Rogers v. Ulrich (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 [“only a third party can listen to what is said in private”].) The Court is not persuaded.
BUSTOS VS RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CLINIC
CVRI2203466
Jan 28, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Analysis: First cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 630, et seq. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failto state a claim for violation of the CIPA because Facebook was a party to the communications that were allegedly intercepted. (See Rogers v. Ulrich (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 [“only a third party can listen to what is said in private”].) The Court is not persuaded.
BUSTOS VS RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CLINIC
CVRI2203466
Jan 29, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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.)
MEACHAM VS. EL POLLO LOCO, INC.
30-2016-00888774
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
In sum, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient as to Penal Code section 631(a).
LICEA VS BOOKS-A-MILLION INC
37-2023-00013708-CU-CR-CTL
Sep 08, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Initially, the Court rejects Defendants contention that it cannot be subject to derivative liability under California Penal Code , Section 631(a). The complaint sufficiently alleges facts showing that Attentive violated the second clause of California Penal Code , Section 631. ( Id ., ¶¶ 11-13, 20-22.)
MIGUEL ESPARZA VS URBAN OUTFITTERS INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION
23STCV08874
Oct 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC alleges a single cause of action for violation of California Penal Code § 631(a). Defendants now demurrer to the FAC. A.
ANNE HEITING VS VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES, LLC
23STCV16758
Nov 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code section 632.5, subdivision (a): anyone who “maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between any cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone” violates this statute.
GREGORY V. KSBW, A CALIFORNIA TELEVISION STATION OWNED BY HEARSTTELEVISION, INC., ET AL.
18CECG00631
Jun 19, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Penal Code § 631) : OVERRULED. a.
MIGUEL A. LICEA VS RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION
23STCV22458
Apr 15, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
California Penal Code section 631(a), prescribes criminal penalties for three distinct and mutually independent patterns of conduct: intentional wiretapping, wilfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the previous two activities. ( Id. at p. 192.)
MIGUEL ESPARZA VS GOLDSILVER LLC, A NEW YORK ENTITY
23STCV19517
Feb 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, claims made under the Right to Repair Act are often referred to as SB800 claims. 2 Penal Code §637.2 creates a private right of action for a person injured under Penal Code section 630 et seq.
RONALD BERRY V. LYNN MARIE STROUD
17CVP-0313
Aug 21, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Penal Code section 631 ("Wiretapping") provides in pertinent part that it is unlawful for: Any person who, [1] by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or [2] who willfully and without
LICEA VS SUNROAD AUTO HOLDING CORP
37-2022-00046821-CU-CR-CTL
Jul 28, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Penal Code section 632.5, subdivision (a): anyone who “maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between any cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone” violates this statute.
GREGORY V. MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, ET AL.
18CECG00621
Jun 19, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Plaintiff alleges Penal Code Section 631(a) applies to internet communications and that all parties to the communication must consent to other parties reading and learning of the contents of communication. (Compl. ¶ 24). As alleged, software embedded on Defendant's website qualifies as a "machine, instrument, contrivance, or . . . other manner," as defined by Section 631. (Compl. ¶ 25).
37-2023-00009235-CU-CR-CTL
Jun 30, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs 1st cause of action for violation of Penal Code §631 is overruled.
MIGUEL LICEA VS BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, A NEW YORK FOR PROFIT ENTITY
23STCV04925
Aug 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Cause of Action for Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a): Defendant argues the this cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.
ANNE HEITING VS POSTABLE, LLC
23STCV28124
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant argues that the scope of Penal Code §§ 631 and 632 is limited to transmissions that included two or more individuals. Plaintiffs’ allegations are outside Penal Code § 631’s scope. D. Plaintiffs’ Consent Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim is barred by their consent.
ROBIN BARBOUR VS. JOHN MUIR HEALTH
C22-01693
Dec 29, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
First Cause of Action Plaintiffs first cause of action is for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, specifically, Penal Code section 631 .
MIGUEL A. LICEA VS THE FINISH LINE, INC., AN INDIANA CORPORATION
23STCV22390
Feb 28, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Violation of Penal Code Section 632 The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
SHARI ANN DINNEL VS MAITREYA MADHYASTHA, ET AL.
20TRCV00431
Mar 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality Penal Code section 632 prohibits eavesdropping or intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. (Pen. Code, § 632(a).)
RONALD BERRY V. LYNN MARIE STROUD
17CVP-0313
May 01, 2018
Hurst
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Penal Code section 632, part of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, provides in pertinent part that “[e]very person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication . . . records the confidential communication” by “means of any electronic amplifying or recording device” shall be punished as specified. (Pen. Code § 632(a).)
JILL STEARNS V. GULESSERIAN BROS., INC., ET AL.
19CV359138
Jul 01, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
The statute of limitations for Penal Code section 632 claims is one year. (CCP § 340(a).) Unless a complaint affirmatively discloses on its face that the statute of limitations has run, a demurrer must be overruled. ( Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 881 [It must appear clearly and affirmatively that, upon the face of the complaint, the right of action is necessarily barred]; see also Moseley v.
JUAN GABRIEL CASIO TOGLE VS ASPIRIANT, LLC, ET AL.
22SMCV02003
Jul 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 19STCV39557 Hearing Date: April 26, 2021 Dept: 48 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION IN LMINE Plaintiffs Barry and Linda Baum and move to exclude testimony from Avrille Krom regarding a telephone conversation she overheard on the grounds she was eavesdropping under Penal Code section 632. Defendants argue that Krom was in the room when the conversation was taking place on a speakerphone and therefore there was no intentional eavesdropping.
BARRY BAUM, ET AL. VS JOSHUA KROM, ET AL.
19STCV39557
Apr 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 444, plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated Penal Code §632 based on the defendant’s unlawful wiretapping of his private phone conversations. The illegality of the alleged conduct was undisputed. The dispute was over whether it occurred.
VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER, LLC VS MARTIN E. FLYNN
SC127372
Feb 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant now moves for leave to file a permissive cross-complaint against Plaintiff to assert a cause of action under Penal Code, section 632. Defendant contends that it has standing to bring this cross-claim under Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 879, as the recorded individuals were employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Mot. 7; Reply 6-7.)
SIA AMBER SOUTHERN VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CO
BC690804
Feb 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Merits Penal Code § 632(a) makes it illegal for a person to “intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication . . . record [] the confidential communication.”
SHEILA HUDSON VS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL
BC631894
May 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Dissemination of a recording made in violation of Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a) is not itself a violation of statute. As for the alleged violation of subdivision (d) of Penal Code section 632, it is barred by the litigation privilege as set forth above.
RUELAS V. CITY OF FRESNO
16CECG04041
Mar 28, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Sixth COA (Violation of CIPA) Defendants argue that Penal Code section 632 only applies to eavesdropping or recording confidential communications by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device (except a radio) and therefore does not apply to emails.
ACCURATE TELECOM INC ET AL VS JEREMY BIJAOUI ET AL
BC707590
Sep 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant contends that plaintiff’s FAC, as well as the matters subject to judicial notice, establish as a matter of law that the conversations recorded by defendant were not “confidential communications” within the meaning of Penal Code Section 632.
PAUL T NOLAN VS JEANINE M WALTERS
16CV00144
May 09, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality Penal Code section 632 prohibits eavesdropping or intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. (Pen. Code, § 632(a).)
RONALD BERRY V. LYNN MARIE STROUD
17CVP-0313
Jan 30, 2018
Hurst
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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 . . .
JON CRITTENDEN VS LAURA A LAMBERT
19PSCV00470
Sep 15, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
WAGNER VS DELISI WAGNERS MOTION TO RECONSIDER & REVOKE COURT RULINGS GRANTING DELISIS MOTION BY ALLAN WAGNER
MCC2000803
Oct 27, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
HARDIN V. JOHNSTON
SCV-265574
Jun 04, 2020
Patrick M
Sonoma County, CA
The Second Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts of the elements of duty apart from the fiduciary duty of spouses, including the duty of care of cohabitants and the duty to refrain from conduct violating Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a). The Second Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts concerning breach of duty, causation and damages to withstand demurrer. Defendant is granted leave to serve and file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint by no later than September 11, 2012.
SARKIS G MARKARIAN VS. ANAIT MARKARIAN
56-2011-00406581-CU-MC-SIM
Aug 22, 2012
Ventura County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
The parties reference Penal Code 632.
LEAF CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC VS. VISION ONE OPTOMETRY OF WEST COVINA, INC.
30-2017-00955138-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 11, 2019
Orange County, CA
The complaint alleges three causes of action for (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Violations of California Penal Code §§ 632, 637.2, and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
SCOTT KOONDEL VS STACI KOONDEL
21STCV17292
Dec 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code §632(a) (emphasis added).
JASON SHAW VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
23STCP03062
Apr 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The crux of the instant dispute concerns the applicability of Penal Code §632. This statute prohibits eavesdropping on a confidential communication using an electronic amplifying or recording device.
MARIA CONCEPCION ROSALES IRASAVA VS PHARMAVITE LLC ET AL
BC595706
Sep 20, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Defendant cites to Penal Code section 632 and Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 CA4th 736, 761 (Slesinger) in support of its objection to the photograph, however, neither is relevant.
GOUTERMONT VS. BUHS
30-2020-01130855
May 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
SANDRA MEZGER ET AL VS RANDY RALPH BICK JR ET AL
BC714748
Feb 19, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
BR MARKETING, INC. V. RUSKEY
30-2018-01031255-CU-FR-CJC
Jan 21, 2020
Orange County, CA
Second Cause of Action Unlawful Recording and Eavesdropping of Communications in Violation of Penal Code Section 632 Defendant demurs to the Second Cause of Action for Unlawful Recording and Eavesdropping of Communications in Violation of Penal Code section 632. Penal Code section 632 bars the intentional recording of a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. ( Wilkins v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4 th 1066, 1079.)
CESAR MONTOYA VS KOSTIV & ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
22STCV24483
Nov 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code 637.2 allows a party to bring a civil claim against the person "who committed the violation" of Penal Code 632. It does not provide for vicarious liabiliuty for the acts of another. See Warden v. Kahn at 99Cal.App.3d 805. Mr. Coranado cannot eavesdrop on a conversation he is a party to. While he can wrongfully record a conversation he is a party to, the second cause of action is not pleaded with the requisite specificity and inappropriately refers to "defendants" generally. See Mittenhauer v.
JESSIE J VERDUN VS. ALEX CORONADO
56-2013-00444188-CL-PO-VTA
Jul 03, 2014
Ventura County, CA
First Cause of Action Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a): Defendant argues the first cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.
ANNE HEITING, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DESIGN HOLDINGS, INC., AN IOWA CORPORATION
23STCV26294
Jan 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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. The alleged wrongful acts that form the basis of the complaint occurred no later than 8/15/14, the date the complaint was filed.
VIVIAN TU BANH VS IVONNE V QUINTEROS
BC554916
Dec 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication of Issue 1 (1st cause of action for violation of Penal Code § 632) is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not negated Defendant Hudson’s affirmative defense of extortion, and even if they have, Defendant Hudson has raised triable issues of material fact regarding her statutory justification for at least the first two of her three surreptitious recordings pursuant to Penal Code § 633.5.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL
BC663058
May 17, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CHANG ROK KIM VS GEON OH SEO ET AL
BC697450
Jul 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Plaintiff”) has sued Defendants Northern California Electrical Construction Industry (“NCECI”), Andre Gardner, David Vincent and Patrick Wirsing for violations of Business and Professions Code §17200 and violation of Penal Code §632. The section 17200 claim is based on alleged violations of Business and Professions Code §7521, 7523, Penal Code §632, Civil Code 1708.8(a) and Labor Code §108(b), (c). “Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps.
BLACK DIAMOND VS. NORTHER CALIFORNIA
MSC17-01816
Dec 18, 2017
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie claim under Penal Code ? 632. It is undisputed the that Defendant electronically recorded the parties' conversation on January 17, 2012. (See Evidence Cited in Support of Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") 7.)
FERDINAND AUSTRIA ET AL VS. FRED W. SCHWINN
CGC13527897
Jan 13, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Penal Code § 632(d) prohibits a person who has made an illegal recording from using that recording as evidence. It reads, in its entirety: “Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.” Defendants allege that Plaintiff made an illegal recording in violation of § 632.
BACANI VS. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR CENTER, INC.
30-2016-00839361-CU-WT-CJC
Sep 09, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
CALLAN, ET AL. V. GOOGLE LLC (CONSOLIDATED ACTION/LEAD CASE)
18-CV-324895
Sep 13, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Lee (“Defendants”) seek to exclude reference to two videos, which Defendants contend were taken on Defendants’ private property without Defendants’ consent in violation of Penal Code section 632. Section 632 prohibits the recording without consent of confidential communications. Defendants do not describe the contents of the videos and do not state whether the videos captured any confidential communications.
HAI SOON HAN VS COMMUNITY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV14778
Jan 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
(See Penal Code § 632.) As such, indulging the allegations in favor of the complaining party, it appears that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged outrageous conduct at this stage of the litigation.
MADISON VS GEARY
37-2018-00000696-CU-PA-NC
Jan 31, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
As a result, on June 8, 2017, Defendant filed a civil complaint against both Plaintiffs in Kings County as Case No. 17C0159 alleging a violation of Penal Code § 632. On September 6, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to transfer the latter case from Kings County to Fresno County and consolidate it with the instant case.
TAYLOR ET AL. V. WEST HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET AL.
14CECG03586
Oct 25, 2017
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
MARIA AHUMADA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
19STCV20822
Aug 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for recording of confidential communications in violation of Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a) and stalking in violation of Civil Code section 1708.7. (Motion at pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff provides a copy of her proposed FAC and a redlined version showing the amendments. (Swanson Decl., Exs. 1-2.)
BIANCA MURPHY VS CURTIS SAND & GRAVEL, ET AL.
20STCV34617
Apr 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action for Violation of Penal Code Section 632 The first cause of action alleges Duncan and SCU violated Penal Code section 632 (“Section 632”) by re-recording and duplicating the confidential conversation between Plaintiff and Riesfield.
BAERWALD V. PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SANTA CLARA COLLEGE, ET AL.
18CV330215
Jan 24, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Penal Code § 632(a). A “confidential communication” is “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 ... in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.” Penal Code § 632(c).
CHRISTOPHER FURNIVAL VS JUDITH DALE
17CV02272
May 02, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
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”).
JOHNSTON V. KRAUSE
FCS048702
Jul 15, 2019
Solano County, CA
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.
KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
37-2014-00023795-CU-MC-NC
Sep 05, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a), provides that a person who does any of the following has acted in violation of Californias Invasion of Privacy Act ( CIPA): Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of
MILTITA CASILLAS VS TRANSITIONS OPTICAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
23STCV30742
Apr 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert claims for (1) violation of CIPA, Penal Code section 630 et seq. and (2) violation of the New Hampshire Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Statute, New Hampshire Revised Statutes 570-A:2. Plaintiff John Callan brings the first cause of action on behalf of a putative class of California email users. He and other individual plaintiffs who reside in California also bring individual claims under CIPA.
CALLAN, ET AL. V. GOOGLE LLC (CONSOLIDATED ACTION/LEAD CASE)
18-CV-324895
Nov 16, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Here, Movants contend that there is no independent duty requiring an individual to disclose that he is creating a recording beyond what is stated in Penal Code section 632 and 632.7. (Demurrer at pg. 15.) Movants reason that Cross-Complainants are attempting to “revive the time-barred claims under Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7” through the cause of action for fraudulent concealment. In opposition, Cross-Complainants argue that the FACC has sufficiently alleged that Cross-Defendant Leo owed them a duty.
LEO CHI HONG WANG VS STELLA YEH
KC069679
Sep 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The failure to notify Vision One of the call being recorded was a violation of Penal Code 632. (Plaintiff’s Claim, pg. 2 of 5.) Plaintiff has established that both matters involve purported recorded telephone calls between Leaf Capital and Vision One. Thus, the Court finds that there are common questions of law or fact in this instant action and the Small Claims Action filed by Vision One and consolidation appears appropriate. The small claims action of Vision One Optometry of West Covina v.
LEAF CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC VS. VISION ONE OPTOMETRY OF WEST COVINA, INC.
30-2017-00955138-CU-BC-CJC
Dec 06, 2018
Orange County, CA
The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), filed on 12/9/15, asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2 The Final Status Conference is set for 6/25/18. A jury trial is set for 7/3/18.
NOBIA JOYCE VS SHAWN M. MILLNER
KC067782
Jun 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Lundy for violation of Penal Code §632/637.2 (invasion of privacy). Plaintiff alleges that starting in or about November 2017, plaintiff and defendant became legally separated with a stipulated date of separation being November 13, 2017. After separation, the parties had legal disputes regarding the separation, subsequent divorce proceedings, and child custody issues. Complaint, ¶4. At some unknown date, defendant began secretly recording private communication between the parties.
COREY W. GLAVE VS SHARON R. LUNDY
20TRCV00052
Jan 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7, which prohibit the intentional interception or recording of a communication involving a cellular or cordless phone fail because there is no evidence of any telephonic communication between plaintiff and defendant.
EWING VS. A1 SOLAR POWER INC
37-2015-00035326-CU-BT-CTL
Jul 27, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff’s counsel states the effect of the amendment will be to add several causes of action including recording of confidential information in violation of Penal Code §§632, 637.2, invasion of privacy and trespass. (Kim Decl. ¶7.) Defendants have not opposed the instant motion, and in light of the policy to liberally allow amendments in the absence of prejudice, the Plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended complaint. Based on the foregoing, the instant motion is GRANTED.
CHANG ROK KIM VS GEON OH SEO ET AL
BC697450
Feb 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code section 632 [unlawful recording of communications].); 3. These records are the business records of the Admire firm. The Court overrules plaintiff's objection based on the records falling outside section 1157 because this is not a criminal action and there is a strong public policy in favor of confidentiality and so the mere allegation of criminal conduct is insufficient to defeat the claim of privilege.
ESCALERA VS SHARP HEALTHCARE [E-FILED]
37-2016-00017392-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 02, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On April 8, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) with new causes of action for recording of confidential communications in violation of Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a) and stalking in violation of Civil Code section 1708.7, finding that Defendants would be prejudiced before the July 25, 2022 trial date. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a FAC.
BIANCA MURPHY VS CURTIS SAND & GRAVEL, ET AL.
20STCV34617
Jul 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
First, at issue in the case was whether plaintiffs may seek at the pleading stage to recover both punitive damages as permitted by Civil Code section 3294 and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping pursuant to Penal Code section 637.2, subdivision (a) . ( Id. at 1256.) Here, however, statutory penalties are not issue. Second, the facts are inapposite as Clauson involved allegations of wiretapping, not a vehicular accident.
PERRY GERARD LUCERO VS JEADAM CHO
23PSCV01870
Oct 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code § 630. (JMH’s citation to People v. Wilson 1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 598, 603, adds nothing to its argument. At issue there was “interception” by means of an answering service physically writing down messages after they were conveyed by telephone; there was no issue of a simultaneous duplication or of interception at the moment of sending the telephone message.)
ROBIN BARBOUR VS. JOHN MUIR HEALTH
C22-01693
May 18, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
PHAM VS. MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION
30-2019-01058751
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
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).
LOUIS LOZANO, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
19STCP00168
Jul 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV18618
Aug 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In light of this ruling, it is unnecessary to decide whether the transcript is also inadmissible under Penal Code section 632(d). However, Proposition 8 limited the effect of section 632(d) such that evidence collected in violation of the statute is not per se inadmissible. People v. Guzman (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 184, 196. Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.
IV SOLUTIONS INC VS SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTY SCHOOLS FRINGE BENEFIT CONSORTIUM INSURANCE SERVICES LLC
37-2017-00031769-CU-CO-CTL
Oct 25, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Contract - Other
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.”
NOBIA JOYCE VS SHAWN M. MILLNER
KC067782
Sep 21, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
CIPA begins with Penal Code section 630, with definitions and limitations reflecting an era of cordless radio phones and cellular phones at the time.
JOSE LICEA VS HICKORY FARMS LLC, A DELAWARE ENTITY
23STCV26148
Mar 13, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code §632(b) defines “person” as “an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof...”
JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.
19STCV37786
Aug 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Penal Code § 632: Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to prevail because Defendant violated Penal Code § 632.
CHARLES LUKE VS THE SERVICE WAREHOUSE INC
BC698760
Feb 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(Valdeon Decl., ¶ 4.) [7] Based on the evidence before the court, the court finds Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any real likelihood of success on the merits of their Penal Code section 632 claim. [8] The court finds Defendants express and specific denials more persuasive then the evidence proffered by Plaintiffs.
ALAN WAYNE LINDEKE, ET AL. VS ADAM LEVINE
23STCV18166
Sep 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 16, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 14, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 18, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 15, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 13, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Jan 02, 2024
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Jan 01, 2024
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 31, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 30, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 29, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).
FL1903657
Dec 28, 2023
Shannon M Gerhart
Marin County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.