Wiretapping Laws in California

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.

BACKGROUND On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Licea filed a complaint against Defendant The Mens Wearhouse, LLC, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Penal Code 631; and (2) Penal Code 632.7. Plaintiff alleges Defendants are illegally wiretapping and monitoring online customer service chat conversations. ANALYSIS A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it. (CCP § 430.50(a).)

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).

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.)

Liability Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Penal Code section 631(a) proscribes four types of conduct stemming from wiretapping: (1) where a person intentionally taps or makes an unauthorized connection with any telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument; (2) where a person willfully and without consent reads, or attempts to learn, the contents of a communication in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from or received at any place within the

The fact that the other defendant used the software rather than a physical recording device for the same function “does not mean that it aided and abetted wiretapping.” (Id. at p. *4.)

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.

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.

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.)

( Id. ) Where it is alleged that a third party has violated California Penal Code section 631, it follows that the entity who engaged such third party is liable for a violation under California Penal Code section 631. ( Id. ) The protections of Penal Code section 631 extend explicitly to the beginnings and ends of communications, so there is no reason to consider the first part of an electronic communication beyond the statutes reach. ( Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC , 2019 WL 5485330 at *2 (N.D.

In sum, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient as to Penal Code section 631(a).

Use of a recording that would otherwise be inadmissible pursuant to Penal Code section 632 is permitted where offered for impeachment purposes. ( People v. Crow (1994) 28 Cal. App.4th 440, 452; Frio v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal App. 3d 1480, 1497.) While the admission of a recording is not the subject of Crow and Frio , the latter case clearly holds that Penal Code 632 cannot be construed so as to confer upon a testifying witness the right to commit perjury.

Furthermore, allegations that Defendant facilitated third party wiretapping by voluntarily embedding software code to its website has been held sufficient to support a claim for violation of section 631(a). (See Saleh v. Nike, Inc. (Cal.

Furthermore, allegations that Defendant facilitated third party wiretapping by voluntarily embedding software code to its website has been held sufficient to support a claim for violation of section 631(a). (See Saleh v. Nike, Inc. (Cal.

Furthermore, allegations that Defendant facilitated third party wiretapping by voluntarily embedding software code to its website has been held sufficient to support a claim for violation of section 631(a). (See Saleh v. Nike, Inc. (Cal.

First Cause of Action for Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act Penal Code Section 631 Plaintiffs first cause of action is for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, specifically, Penal Code section 631 .

The FAC alleges a single cause of action for violation of California Penal Code § 631(a). Defendants now demurrer to the FAC. A.

Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act – Penal Code § 631(a) Penal Code § 631(a), which provides for civil liability in addition to criminal liability, states as follows: (a) 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

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.)

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.

Second Cause of Action Plaintiff argues that, under Penal Code § 632, Defendants are liable for eavesdropping, for intentionally and without Plaintiffs consent, installing hardwired electronic amplifying or recording devices to record Plaintiffs confidential communications.

Penal Code § 631) : OVERRULED. a.

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.)

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.

BACKGROUND On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff Sarah Nazari filed a complaint against Defendants David Abbasi, Maria Kathleen Ajhar, and Does 1 through 25, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of California Penal Code section 632.7; and (2) violation of California Penal Code section 632.5. Plaintiff and Defendant David Abbasi were parties in a separate civil lawsuit (the Quiet Title Action). (Complaint ¶ 13.)

BACKGROUND On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff Sarah Nazari filed a complaint against Defendants David Abbasi, Maria Kathleen Ajhar, and Does 1 through 25, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of California Penal Code section 632.7; and (2) violation of California Penal Code section 632.5. Plaintiff and Defendant David Abbasi were parties in a separate civil lawsuit (the Quiet Title Action). (Complaint ¶ 13.)

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.

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

Furthermore, wiretapping under Section 631(a) only imposes liability if the alleged conduct is done against a telephone. Defendant's chat feature conducts communication through an internet website. The chat feature is not one of the enumerated types of telephones defined by Section 631. See also Matera v. Google Inc. (N. D. Cal.

Wiretapping a.

CIPA prohibits wiretapping and eavesdropping of electronic communications without the consent of all parties to the communication. Plaintiff alleges a claim for violation of CIPA. II. ARGUMENTS Defendant demurs to the complaint to the extent it alleges aiding and abetting of an unidentified partys violation of Penal Code § 631. To support a claim for aiding and abetting, Plaintiff must prove the elements showing the unnamed party bears direct liability.

Crow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 440, 452 [Evidence of confidential conversations obtained by . . . recording in violation of [Penal Code] section 632 is generally inadmissible . . . but can be used to impeach inconsistent testimony by those seeking to exclude the evidence].) The rationale for this exception is simple: Penal Code section 632 cannot be construed so as to confer upon a testifying witness the right to commit perjury. ( Frio , supra , 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1497.)

Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs 1st cause of action for violation of Penal Code §631 is overruled.

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.

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.

First Cause of Action Plaintiffs first cause of action is for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, specifically, Penal Code section 631 .

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.

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).)

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).)

Penal Code § 631(a) . (Compl., ¶ 29.)

No sanctions under the protective order motion are appropriate, as Plaintiff sought the order based on a misinterpretation of the reach of Penal Code § 632, subd. (d), and Defendants opposed it based on a misinterpretation of Penal Code § 632, subd. (c). It would therefore be unjust to award sanctions to either party

The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges six causes of action against BDO for: (1) Invasion of Privacy Upon Seclusion; (2) Violation of California Penal Code § 632; (3) Violation of California Penal Code § 632.7; (4) Violation of California Penal Code § 637; (5) Violation of California Penal Code § 637.7; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).

Penal Code Section 631 Penal Code section 631 subdivision (a) provides, in full, as follows: Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or 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 who [2] willfully

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.

Subdivision (a) of [Penal Code] section 631 prescribes criminal penalties for three distinct and mutually independent patterns of conduct: intentional wiretapping, willfully 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. ( Tavernetti v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 187, 192.)

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.

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.

The California Supreme Court has interpreted § 631(a) to contain three operative clauses, which cover three distinct and mutually independent patterns of conduct: (1) intentional wiretapping, (2) willfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and (3) attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the two previous activities. ( Martin v. Sephora USA, Inc . (E.D.

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.)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT (CIPA) CIPA prohibits intentional wiretapping, attempts to learn the contents of communications in transit, and aiding and abetting such acts. (See Cal. Penal Code § 631(a).) AHF argues that the aiding-and-abetting clause requires criminal intent. The Court rejects this; the statute as worded does not include an intent standard. ( See St. Aubin v. Carbon Health Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.

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.”

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.

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).)

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.

This required that he ask approximately 23 requests for each date Plaintiff contends Lambert recorded their confidential communications in violation of Penal Code § 632 et seq. (Id.) After receiving Lambert’s June 5, 2020 email requesting that he withdraw Nos. 36-473, Schwartzberg tried to resolve the matter by giving Lambert 90 additional days to respond. (Id., ¶7, Exh. 2.)

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.

In Reply, Cross-Defendant states the Opposition fails to cite any case holding that a hotel lobby communication is confidential under Penal Code section 632. (Reply, pp. 2-3.) Further, Cross-Defendant contends that even accepting the Cross-Complaints allegations as true, the Cross-Complaint fails as a matter of law. (Reply, pp. 4-5.)

The prior motion included much of the same analysis of the admissibility of the recording under Penal Code section 632. To the extent defendant is attempting to move for sanctions under Penal Code section 632 in the present motion, the statute does not provide a clear mechanism that would allow this court to award the sanctions at this time. In Frio v.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 631, Defendant is liable if Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit violation of CIPA. (Pen. Code, § 631, subd. (a).) As such, Plaintiff only has to allege Defendant permitted the third party to embed its code into the chat function of Defendants website. Plaintiff so alleges. (See Complaint, ¶ 10.)

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.

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.

Penal Code §632(a) (emphasis added).

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.

Defendant is alleged to have knowingly allowed the communications to be disclosed to Facebook via Facebook Pixel, thereby aiding and abetting in the disclosure of the communications to Facebook in violation of Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a). (Id. at ¶¶ 26-27, 42, 76.) In order to state a cause of action for aiding and abetting, plaintiffs must adequately allege a violation of the first, second, or third clauses of section 631(a).

Defendant argues that the analytics tools do not equate to wiretapping devices for purposes of Penal Code § 631(a). Defendant argues that § 631 applies to telephones, but not internet collection, even when performed through cellular phones. Defendant also argues that Penal Code § 631 does not apply to participants in a communication because a party cannot eavesdrop on their own conversation.

He further alleges that Defendant engaged in wiretapping in violation of Penal Code section 631(a). ( Id. ¶¶ 7778.) II. LEGAL STANDARD A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent to a general demurrer. ( Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198). Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity. ( Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.

The parties reference Penal Code 632.

Penal Code section 632 applies to use of an “electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication” and provides that “evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.” (Penal Code, § 632 (a), (d).) Defendant has not shown that section 632 applies to any alleged trespassing.

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.

Penal Code section 632 prohibits a recording of a conversation over which the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy absent consent by all parties. Any recording made in violation of that statute is inadmissible in any proceeding. Defendant contends that plaintiff made such a secret recording.

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.

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.

Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from using any video recordings allegedly created through a surveillance camera system located in Plaintiffs counsels office during depositions conducted on May 16, 2025, September 3, 2025, and September 4, 2025, and seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,575.00 based on alleged violations of the Discovery Act, deposition recording statutes, and Penal Code section 632. (Amended Motion, pp. 13, 614; Fox Decl.; Azatyan Decl.)

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.)

RELIEF REQUESTED Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication · 9 th Cause of Action: Invasion of Privacy in Violation of California Penal Code § 632 · 10 th Cause of Action: Violation of California Penal Code § 632.7 SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs Kostiv & Associates and Petro Kostiv represented third party client, Lessly Yadira Velasquez Gomez, et al. in a certain matter.

Plaintiff Does Not Allege a Claim Under Penal Code Section 631.

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.

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.

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.

In finding the recording and report protected, the Court notes that the recording activity as alleged does not appear to be illegal in violation of Penal Code section 632 because the conversation that was recorded was not confidential. Indeed, Defendant Noonan was present for the express purpose of being a third party who could witness the conversations between Mr. Patterson and his children.

Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a violation of Penal Code Section 632, which requires the recording of confidential communications. Without facts about the recorded communications, the property, or surrounding context, for instance, Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants violated Plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy is conclusory. As to cause of action 4, Plaintiff shall have leave to amend to allege facts supporting the elements of Negligent Retention with requisite specificity.

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.

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.

Cal. 2021) 549 F.Supp.3d 1073, 1080 [setting forth Penal Code § 631 with line breaks and subdivisions added for ease of reference].)

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.

(“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.

In opposition, Plaintiffs provide a calculation of damages pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code § 632. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs allegations as to the amount of their damages are supported by their other factual allegations, including allegations of numerous violations of Penal Code § 632 and the accompanying statutory damages for each violation. However, as to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.10(b) and Civil Code § 3295(e), Plaintiffs provide no argument.

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.

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.)

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.

(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.

The California Supreme Court has interpreted § 631(a) to contain three operative clauses, which cover three distinct and mutually independent patterns of conduct: (1) intentional wiretapping, (2) willfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and (3) attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the two previous activities. ( Martin v. Sephora USA, Inc . (E.D.

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.

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.

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.

Code § 632 To state a claim under Penal Code Section 632, Plaintiff must allege (1) an electronic recording of or eavesdropping on (2) a confidential communication (3) without the consent of all parties. ( Flanagan v. Flanagan , (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 766, 77476.)

What remains are challenges under Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a) as to whether the FAC sufficiently alleges “transmission”, and as to whether the FAC sufficiently alleges use of the information so transmitted. Defendant submits that the FAC fails both. Defendant does not materially address the issue of transmission, except as to cite to Smith v.

(a) (Wiretapping) failed to plead sufficient facts to support any of the four prohibited wiretapping activities or “clauses”, in general, described as:  (1) tap/connects with telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument; or (2) reads or attempts to read the contents/meaning of any communication while in transit; or (3) uses information so obtained; or (4) conspires with another to commit any of the above three activities.