Preview
Case Number: CIV533327
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
CAROLINE MANEATIS VS HILTON SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT CIV533327
October 06, 2016 9:00 AM
Hearing on Demurrer
Judicial Officer: Karesh, Jonathan E Location: Courtroom 8C
Courtroom Clerk: Lynn Felise Courtroom Reporter: Ruth Ekhaus
Parties Present
HANSEN, JOHN T Attorney
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- No formal order or any other notice is required.
- Tentative ruling adopted AS AMENDED and becomes order:
HEARING ON DEMURRER
As stated in the Court s September 2, 2016 Minute Order, and for the reasons discussed therein,
Defendants' Demurrer to all causes of action asserted in Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint (FAC), with
the exception of the breach of contract claim, is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Demurrer
is OVERRULED as to the contract claim, for the following reasons. First, while there have been
exceptions, the litigation privilege codified in Civ. Code Section 47(b) generally applies to torts rather
than breach of contract claims. Hagberg v. California Fed. Bank FSB, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355, 360
(Section 47(b) bars civil liability for any tort claim based upon a privileged communication. ); Silberg v.
Anderson, (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 214 (the privilege has the effect of immunizing [litigants and witnesses]
from liability for torts arising from communications made during judicial proceedings. ); Stacy & Witbeck,
Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 ( The litigation privilege was never
meant to spin out from judicial action a party's performance and course of conduct under a contract. );
Navellier v. Sletten, (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 773-4 ( the privilege is generally described as one that
precludes liability in tort, not liability for breach of contract. ).
Further, Plaintiff's contract claim here is based primarily on Defendants' act of unlocking Plaintiff's hotel
room and enabling the police to search the room, knowing they had no search warrant. FAC, Parag. 28;
see also FAC Parag. 29 (alleging on information and belief that unlocking the door without requesting to
see a warrant violated hotel policy). The breach of contract claim does not center on statements or
communications to law enforcement, which would be privileged under Section 47(b). In Kimmel v.
Goland, 51 Cal.3d 202, 211, the Supreme Court distinguished protected communications from non-
communicative acts/conduct that breached a contract, stating that this distinction has traditionally
served as a threshold issue in determining the applicability of [Section 47(b)]. ) ( Without exception, the
privilege has applied only to torts arising from statements or publications. ). Vivian v. Labrucherie,
1
Case Number: CIV533327
(2013) 114 Cal.App.4th 267, on which Defendants primarily rely, in contrast, involved statements to law
enforcement.
ANSWER DUE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF TODAY.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is
directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court s ruling verbatim for the
Court s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312. The proposed order is to be
submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.
- Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted.
- ATTY STEVEN R. DISHAROON FOR HILTON SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT BAYFRONT PRESENT.
- ATTY JOHN T. HANSEN FOR CAROLINE MANEATIS PRESENT.
Case Events
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
March 02, 2017 1:30 PM Settlement Conference
Courtroom 2J
Mandatory Settlement Conferences, -
March 20, 2017 9:00 AM Jury Trial
Master Calendar, -
Courtroom 2D
2
Preview
Case Number: CIV533327 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order CAROLINE MANEATIS VS HILTON SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT CIV533327 October 06, 2016 9:00 AM Hearing on Demurrer Judicial Officer: Karesh, Jonathan E Location: Courtroom 8C Courtroom Clerk: Lynn Felise Courtroom Reporter: Ruth Ekhaus Parties Present HANSEN, JOHN T Attorney Exhibits Minutes Journals - No formal order or any other notice is required. - Tentative ruling adopted AS AMENDED and becomes order: HEARING ON DEMURRER As stated in the Court s September 2, 2016 Minute Order, and for the reasons discussed therein, Defendants' Demurrer to all causes of action asserted in Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint (FAC), with the exception of the breach of contract claim, is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the contract claim, for the following reasons. First, while there have been exceptions, the litigation privilege codified in Civ. Code Section 47(b) generally applies to torts rather than breach of contract claims. Hagberg v. California Fed. Bank FSB, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 355, 360 (Section 47(b) bars civil liability for any tort claim based upon a privileged communication. ); Silberg v. Anderson, (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 214 (the privilege has the effect of immunizing [litigants and witnesses] from liability for torts arising from communications made during judicial proceedings. ); Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 ( The litigation privilege was never meant to spin out from judicial action a party's performance and course of conduct under a contract. ); Navellier v. Sletten, (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 773-4 ( the privilege is generally described as one that precludes liability in tort, not liability for breach of contract. ). Further, Plaintiff's contract claim here is based primarily on Defendants' act of unlocking Plaintiff's hotel room and enabling the police to search the room, knowing they had no search warrant. FAC, Parag. 28; see also FAC Parag. 29 (alleging on information and belief that unlocking the door without requesting to see a warrant violated hotel policy). The breach of contract claim does not center on statements or communications to law enforcement, which would be privileged under Section 47(b). In Kimmel v. Goland, 51 Cal.3d 202, 211, the Supreme Court distinguished protected communications from non- communicative acts/conduct that breached a contract, stating that this distinction has traditionally served as a threshold issue in determining the applicability of [Section 47(b)]. ) ( Without exception, the privilege has applied only to torts arising from statements or publications. ). Vivian v. Labrucherie, 1 Case Number: CIV533327 (2013) 114 Cal.App.4th 267, on which Defendants primarily rely, in contrast, involved statements to law enforcement. ANSWER DUE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF TODAY. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, prevailing party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court s ruling verbatim for the Court s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312. The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20. - Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted. - ATTY STEVEN R. DISHAROON FOR HILTON SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT BAYFRONT PRESENT. - ATTY JOHN T. HANSEN FOR CAROLINE MANEATIS PRESENT. Case Events Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings March 02, 2017 1:30 PM Settlement Conference Courtroom 2J Mandatory Settlement Conferences, - March 20, 2017 9:00 AM Jury Trial Master Calendar, - Courtroom 2D 2