Preview
1121:1121
CHUNW
Gregory P. Arakawa (State Bar No. 159023) SAN MATEO
garakawa@wshblaw.com -
4
1
M AY 1 9 2017
Steven R. Disharoon (State Bar No. 273170)
sdisharoon@wshblaw.com
AWN WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700
Concord, California 94520-7982
Phone: 925 222 3400 0 Fax: 925 356 8250
Attorneys for Defendant HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC. (err0neously sued as "HARBOR
VIEW HOLDINGS, INC.")
\IO’x'JI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
0°
IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
CAROLINE MAN EATIS, individually and Case No. CIV533327
LLP
11 dba CARA MIA, 1
8250
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
700
12 Plaintiff, GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
BERMAN
356
94520—7982
SUITE
JUDGMENT
925
&
13 v'
Law
FAX
Action Filed: 04/10/2015
IROAD,
o
at
14
CALIFORNIA
HENNING3400
HARBOR VIEW HOLDINGS, INC., et a1.,,
PASS
Attemeys
Trial Date: 08/07/17
222
15 Defendants.
925
WILLOW
SMITH,NCORD.
/
ONE
1 16
1 CcELéP
WOOD.
:1 17 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
0
:2
18 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an Order Granting Defendant Harbor View Hotels, Inc.'s
19 Motion for Summary Judgment was entered on May 15, 2017, a true and correct copy of said
msv
r___
1——
s 20 Order is attached hereto.
@ 21 DATED: May 19, 2017 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
22
23 , —-- --—_- .._ ___,__ _
\ By:
W
_
.
‘
24 395533327
,
GREG P. ARAKQAWA
£33360!
Entry of Order ;
STEVEN R. DISHAROON
TVNIBMO
25 3
Attorneys for Defendant HARBOR VIEW HOTELS,
I as
26 111111 1111111111 INC")
V - _ , __ _
‘1‘ HOLDINGS,
27
2s
LEGAL:06142-1126/7310925.l _1_
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Ltd
I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1401 Willow Pass
Road, Suite 700, Concord, CA 94520-7982.
On May 19, 2017, I served the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF ENTRY
OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on the interested parties
in this action as follows:
\DOONO‘IKJIA
John T. Hansen
Attorney at Law
582 Market Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 444-6684 (O)/510-910-1392 (M)
Fax: 510-538—9233
10 Email: jhanse‘nlaw101@,gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
I placed true copies of the foregoing document(s) enclosed in sealed
LLP
BY MAIL:
700
8250
12 envelopes addressed as shown on the Service List. I am “readily familiar” with Wood, Smith,
Henning & Berman’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the
BERMAN
356
94520-7982
SUITE
81
925
13 United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States
Law
FAX
ROAD,
Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope(s) were placed for
o
collection and mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Concord, California, on that same day
at
HENNING 3400
14
CALIFORNIA
PASS
Attemeys
222
following ordinary business practices.
15
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
925
WILLOW
SMITH,
CONCORD.
16
TELEPHONE
foregoing is true and correct.
1401
19, 2017, at Concord, California.
WOOD,
17 Executed on May
18
19 ram/42
Rdberta D. Kreft'
I
20 O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGALIOG ['42-] 126/73 10925.1 -2-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ENDORSEDFILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Gregory P. Arakawa (State Bar No. 159023)
garakawa@wshblaw.com MAY 1 5 2017
Steven R. Disharoon (State Bar No. 273170)
-
.
sdisharoon@wshblaw.com Start; of the Superior Conn
W001), SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP By
[401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700
Concord, California 94520-7982
Phone: 925 222 3400 0 Fax: 925 356 8250
Attorneys for Defendant HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC. (erroneously sued as "HARB OR
VIEW HOLDINGS, INC")
\DOOQO‘kll-b
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
LLP
ll CAROLINE MANEATIS, individually and Case No. CV5 33327
dba CARA MIA,
] ORDER GRANTING
8250
700
12 [P
BERMAN
356
94520-7882
SUITE
Plaintiff, , MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
925
13
&
UM
FM
ROAD.
0
v. Date: March 2, 2017
at
14
CAUFORNIA
Time: 9:00 am.
Law & Motion
HENNING3400
'
PASS
Attorneys
HARBOR VIEW HOLDINGS, INC.; Dept:
222
15 HILTON FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC,
925
Action Filed: 04/10/2015
WILLOW
SMITH.
CONCORD.
and DOES 3 through 25’
16
1401
Defendants.
TELE’HOIE
WOOD.
l7
18
19 For the reasons explained below, Defendant Harbor View Hotels, Inc.’s Motion for
20 Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
21 The case stems from an April 10, 2013 incident in which Defendant hotel telephoned the
22 Burlingame Police Department upon observing that Plaintiff, appeared to be intoxicated and
23 disturbing other guests in the hotel bar/lounge area. Hansen Dec1., Ex. 9 (Police Report). Per the
24 Police Report, once the police arrived at the hotel, other hote} guests identified Plaintiff to the
25 officers, stating she had been “causing problems all night.” Id. When the police approached and
26 questioned Plaintiff, who was having difficulty walking at the time, she became belligerent,
27 screamed Obscenities in one of the police officer’s face, and then continued yelling at both
28 responding officers. Id. The reporting officer smelled a “strong odor” of alcohol on Plaintiff’s
1.EGAL:06142-1I26fl240533.l . _1_
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
breath. Id. The hotel bartender reported Plaintiff was “foaming from her mouth.” Id. Unable to
calm her down, the police arrested Plaintiff for public intoxication. Id. Plaintifi‘ continued
“screaming and rambling about various topics” during transport to the police station. Id. When
the police asked her name, Plaintiff provided a false identity, insisting her name was Cara Mia,
which it turns out is the name of a company she owns. Id. When the police returned to the hotel
\OOOQQM-w—I
after the arrest, the bartender gave the police a box filled with personal items Plaintiff lefi behind
in the bar/lounge. Id. The police later searched her personal belongings and, together with two
forms of identification that revealed Plaintiffs true name, found a bag containing coCaine. Id.
At some point, a hotel employee escorted two police officers up to Plaintifi’s hotel room
for the purpose of placing her personal items in the room. It is unclear whether the hotel employee
LLP
or a police officer initially suggested putting Plaintiffs belongings in her room, but the police
HI—lD—‘H
WNHC
officers strongly recommended doing so, for the reason that otherwise, her belongings would have
6250
700
BERMAN
356
94520-7982
SUITE
a.
925
been taken to the police department and stored in an evidence locker, and Plaintiff would have
PM
ROAD,
atLaw
0
HENNING3400
43
I—l
'
CALIFORNIA
been unable to retrieve them for up to a week. After knocking on the room door and receiving no
PASS
Attorney:
response, the hotel employee opened the door and the police announced their presence, stating
222
U]
n—n
925
WILLOW
SMITH,
Plaintiffs colleague, Mr. Alkus, happened to be in the
CONCORD,
0‘
n—-
TELEPHONE
14-01
they were dropping off personal items.
room and announced his presence, and the police officers requested to speak with him. The
WOOD,
\1
.—
0°
—-
parties dispute whether Mr. Alkus then consented to the officers entering the room. When they
--
*0 did, they noticed cocaine visible on the room counter, and Mr. Alkus was arrested. Plaintiff was
NO ultimately charged with public intoxication, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), and for
N --providing the police a false identity. The criminal charges were ultimately dropped in the face of
NN Plaintiffs challenge to the admissibility of the cocaine evidence. This civil lawsuit against the
Nm "hotel ensued.
NA Plaintifi’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the hotel initially alleged breach of an
N u: implied contract (essentially, the hotel’s alleged failure to respect Plaintiff s privacy) and several
N as tort claims, all arising from the foregoing incident. The Court sustained Defendant‘s Demurrer
Nq without leave to amend to the tort causes of action on grounds Defendant’s phone call to the police
N 0° and cooperation with their investigation is privileged under Civil Code Sect. 47(b). The breach of
LEGAL:06l42-1126fl240533.l‘ .2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
implied contract claim survived the Demurrer, and is the sole remaining claim. The issue
presented by this motion is whether Defendant, under the circumstances that took place on April
l0, 2013, can be held liable for breaching an alleged implied contract with Plaintiff to respect her
I
privacy.
The Court finds Plaintiffs breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law. The issue is
not whether hotel guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Rather, it is whether, by
operating a hotel, Defendant impliedly agreed that in the event an intoxicated person appeared to
be disturbing other guests, Defendant would (a) not call the police, (b) not cooperate with a police
investigation, including giving the investigating officers personal items that the guest, once
'10 arrested, appeared to have lefi behind,'and (c) not open Plaintiffs hotel room door to safeguard
LLP
ll her personal belongings. For many of the same reasons underlying the Court’s ruling on
Defendant’s Demurrer (Disharoon Decl., Ex. B), under these circumstances and in light of the
8250
700
12
BERMAN
356
94520-7982
SUITE
l3 evidence presented, Defendant’s act of summoning the police and cooperating with their
925
& Law
FM
ROAD.
0
investigation cannot form the basis for civil liability, whether couched as a tort or a breach of
at
HENNING3400
14
CALIFORNIA
PASS
Attorneys
222
15 alleged implied contract. A contrary finding would be irreconcilable with the public policy of
925
WILLOW
SMITH.
CONCORD.
1401
16 encouraging access to and c00peration with law enforcement. Forro Precision, Inc. v. Int ’1
7515m
Further, hindering a police
WOOD,
I7 Business Machines Corp. (9111
Cir. 1982) .673 F.2d 1045, 1054.
18 investigation itself could be unlawful. Penal Code Sect. 148(a). Plaintiff contends Defendant
19 went beyond mere cooperation by proactively volunteering (giving) the police the personal items
20 she appeared to leave in the bar/lounge. Merely operating a hotel cannot be considered an implied
21 promise that if a person/guest were arrested, the hotel would not give the police personal items the
22 arrested person had in their possession. There is no evidence any hotel employee searched
23 Plaintiff s belongings, asked the police to do so, or did anything other than give them to the
24 police. The police, not the hotel, found the cocaine when they searched Plaintiff’s
25 belongings. Hansen Decl., Ex. 9 (Police Report); UMF 8.
26 Nor can it reasonably be said the hotel impliedly promised it would not, under these
27 circumstances, open Plaintiffs hotel room to safeguard her personal belongings for her
28 return. ,First, it is undisputed Plaintiff was already in custody, and thus there was no risk of
LEGAL206142-1126f7240533J -3-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUWARY JUDGMENT
disturbing her. Opp. at 4; Hansen Decl., Ex. 9(Police Report). Whether the hotel employee or the
police officer initially suggested placing her belongings in the room does not change the
analysis. The officers testified they strongly recommended placing Plaintiff’s belongings in the
room for her own benefit. UMF 9; Hansen Decl., Ex. 11 (Officer Pene testifying that if Plaintiff’s
personals were taken to the police station, they would have been stored in an evidence locker, and
Plaintiff, who was likely to be released in 4-5 hours, would have been unable to retrieve them for
\OOOVQKJIAWN
up to a week). A hotel has an obligation to protect guest property, and the right to enter rooms for
reasons related to their duties. People v. Minervini (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 832, 840 (hotel
management retains control over all premises, including rooms occupied by guests, and has the
10 right to enter rooms to safeguard property). There is no evidence here the hotel employee
LLP
ll intended to do anything other than safeguard Plaintifi’s property and insure it would be available
100
12 to Plaintiff upon her release. Hansen Decl., Ex. 9 (stating that after knocking on the door and
9253568250
HERMAN
94520-7982
SUITE
&
l3 hearing no response, the employee opened it, and the officer announced: “Burlingame Police
FAX
ROAD.
atLaw
9
14
CALIFORNIA
HENNING
Department, dropping off items inside the room”). The issue of whether Mr. Alkus, who
PASS
2223400
Attorneys
15 happened to be in the room, thereafter consented to the officers entering to speak with him does
925
WILLOW
SMITH.
CONCORD.
l6 not change the outcome. The police officer, not the hotel employee, decided to enter and speak
1401TELEPHONE
There is no evidence the hotel employee played any role in that decision, and the
WOODI
17 with the witness.
18 hotel had no implied contractual duty to interfere with a police officer’s felony investigation.
19 As an alleged third-party beneficiary, Plaintifi' argues Defendant's internal policies as a
20 franchisee of the Hilton hotel chain, which were never known or disclosed to Plaintiff prior to this
21 lawsuit, created an implied obligation on Defendant to first approach an intoxicated guest and
22 attempt to resolve any problem before resorting to calling the police, and that Defendant breached
23 this obligation on April 10, 2013 by summoning the police “at the drop of a hat” and treating
24 Plaintiff as a “common criminal.” This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff provides no support for
25 the argument that an internal hotelpolicy, which was unknown to Plaintiff, created an implied
26 contract to conduct a sit—down with Plaintiff before seeking police assistance. Nor did Plaintiff
27 plead a third-party beneficiary theory in this case. Further, such an alleged duty is irreconcilable
28 with the important policy of encouraging citizens to seek police assistance, and generally
lEGAL:06142-1126I7240533.l _4_
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
providing them immunity fi'om liability for doing so. Plaintifi' clairns a distinction between
.summoning the police (clearly a protected right) and the hotel’s alleged act of “bending over
backwards" to assist the police investigation. This argument fails as there is no evidence the hotel
did anything other than reasonably cooperate with the investigation.
\OWNOLh-F-WNO—I
The Court also finds that recognizing the suggested implied contract in this situation would
be contrary to public policy. Although the Court did not dispose of the contract claim on
Demurrer, many of the same policy rationales underlying the Sect. 47(b) privilege support the
conclusion that Plaintiffs implied contract claim should fail as a matter of law. The Sect. 47(b)
litigation privilege has in some cases been applied to preclude breach of contract claims. See
discussion in Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4'h 763 (involving an express covenant not
LLP
to sue). The rationale for courts generally excluding its application to contract claims, as opposed
100
9253568250
to torts, is largely based on the notion it would be inequitable to grant immunity to a party who has
BERMAN
94520-7982
SUITE
8i performed an act it expressly promised not to do. That is, courts have been reluctant to grant a
FAX
Law
ROAD.
0
at
CALIFORNIA
privilege to breach an express covenant. See, e.g.,Wentland v. Wass (2005) 126 Cal.App.4'9h 1484
HENNING
PASS
Attorneys
(holding that although making disparaging statements in the course of litigation would normally
9252223400
WILLOW
SMITH.
be privileged under Sect. 47(b), the privilege does not apply where the party expressly promised,
CONCORD.
1401TElEPHotE
WOOD.
in a written contract, not to make such statements);
NNNNNNMNNu—IHHHH—i—a—is—av—A
Vivian v.Labrucherie (20l3) 214 Cal.App.4'h
267, 276-77 (the litigation privilege can apply to contract claims so long as its application furthers
the policy of the privilege, and the contract in question does not “clearly prohibit” the conduct at
issue). Here, the alleged contract is implied, not express, and the actions taken by the hotel that
purportedly constitute a breach are the same acts the Court held are immune from tort .
liability.Thus, whether privileged or not, many of the same policy reasons underlying Sect. 47(b)
support the conclusion here that Defendant, in calling the police, cooperating with their
investigation, and opening Plaintiff‘s door to safeguard her personal items, did not breach any
implied contract with Plaintiff.
The Court acknowledges Defendant’s arguments regarding causation and damages, but
need not reach those issues to grant the motion.
Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs evidence are ruled upon as follows:
LEGAL:06 l42-l 126/72405311 -5_ ,
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Obj. No. 1, Dec]. of Caroline Maneatis. OVERRULED. The objection is overbroad
2 because it covers the entire declaration. The objections do not apply to the entire declaration.
3‘ Obj. Nos. 2 through 6, “Hilton Brand Standards,” lounge receipts, motion to suppress,
‘
4 concession to motion to suppress, Hilton’s “H.E.A.R.T. model.” OVERRULED. The Court
5 agrees these documents are of marginal relevance, if any. However, the Court has considered
6 them‘in ruling on the motion.
7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
DATED: ’52 (9x! ,2017
10
LLP
“ RICHARD H. DuBOlS
8250
700
12 Judge of the Superior Court
BERMAN
356
94520-7982
SUITE
925
8n
13
FM
Law
ROAD.
31
0
HENNING3400
14
CALIFORNIA
PASS
Attorneys
222
'
15
925
WILLOW
SMITH.
CONCORD.
more
16
1401
WOOD.
l7
18
19
20 i
21
if
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGALfl6142-1126n240533J _6_
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Preview
1121:1121 CHUNW Gregory P. Arakawa (State Bar No. 159023) SAN MATEO garakawa@wshblaw.com - 4 1 M AY 1 9 2017 Steven R. Disharoon (State Bar No. 273170) sdisharoon@wshblaw.com AWN WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Concord, California 94520-7982 Phone: 925 222 3400 0 Fax: 925 356 8250 Attorneys for Defendant HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC. (err0neously sued as "HARBOR VIEW HOLDINGS, INC.") \IO’x'JI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0° IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 CAROLINE MAN EATIS, individually and Case No. CIV533327 LLP 11 dba CARA MIA, 1 8250 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER 700 12 Plaintiff, GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY BERMAN 356 94520—7982 SUITE JUDGMENT 925 & 13 v' Law FAX Action Filed: 04/10/2015 IROAD, o at 14 CALIFORNIA HENNING3400 HARBOR VIEW HOLDINGS, INC., et a1.,, PASS Attemeys Trial Date: 08/07/17 222 15 Defendants. 925 WILLOW SMITH,NCORD. / ONE 1 16 1 CcELéP WOOD. :1 17 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 0 :2 18 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an Order Granting Defendant Harbor View Hotels, Inc.'s 19 Motion for Summary Judgment was entered on May 15, 2017, a true and correct copy of said msv r___ 1—— s 20 Order is attached hereto. @ 21 DATED: May 19, 2017 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 22 23 , —-- --—_- .._ ___,__ _ \ By: W _ . ‘ 24 395533327 , GREG P. ARAKQAWA £33360! Entry of Order ; STEVEN R. DISHAROON TVNIBMO 25 3 Attorneys for Defendant HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, I as 26 111111 1111111111 INC") V - _ , __ _ ‘1‘ HOLDINGS, 27 2s LEGAL:06142-1126/7310925.l _1_ NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Ltd I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700, Concord, CA 94520-7982. On May 19, 2017, I served the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows: \DOONO‘IKJIA John T. Hansen Attorney at Law 582 Market Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 444-6684 (O)/510-910-1392 (M) Fax: 510-538—9233 10 Email: jhanse‘nlaw101@,gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 I placed true copies of the foregoing document(s) enclosed in sealed LLP BY MAIL: 700 8250 12 envelopes addressed as shown on the Service List. I am “readily familiar” with Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the BERMAN 356 94520-7982 SUITE 81 925 13 United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Law FAX ROAD, Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope(s) were placed for o collection and mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Concord, California, on that same day at HENNING 3400 14 CALIFORNIA PASS Attemeys 222 following ordinary business practices. 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 925 WILLOW SMITH, CONCORD. 16 TELEPHONE foregoing is true and correct. 1401 19, 2017, at Concord, California. WOOD, 17 Executed on May 18 19 ram/42 Rdberta D. Kreft' I 20 O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEGALIOG ['42-] 126/73 10925.1 -2- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENDORSEDFILED SAN MATEO COUNTY Gregory P. Arakawa (State Bar No. 159023) garakawa@wshblaw.com MAY 1 5 2017 Steven R. Disharoon (State Bar No. 273170) - . sdisharoon@wshblaw.com Start; of the Superior Conn W001), SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP By [401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Concord, California 94520-7982 Phone: 925 222 3400 0 Fax: 925 356 8250 Attorneys for Defendant HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC. (erroneously sued as "HARB OR VIEW HOLDINGS, INC") \DOOQO‘kll-b SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 LLP ll CAROLINE MANEATIS, individually and Case No. CV5 33327 dba CARA MIA, ] ORDER GRANTING 8250 700 12 [P BERMAN 356 94520-7882 SUITE Plaintiff, , MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 925 13 & UM FM ROAD. 0 v. Date: March 2, 2017 at 14 CAUFORNIA Time: 9:00 am. Law & Motion HENNING3400 ' PASS Attorneys HARBOR VIEW HOLDINGS, INC.; Dept: 222 15 HILTON FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC, 925 Action Filed: 04/10/2015 WILLOW SMITH. CONCORD. and DOES 3 through 25’ 16 1401 Defendants. TELE’HOIE WOOD. l7 18 19 For the reasons explained below, Defendant Harbor View Hotels, Inc.’s Motion for 20 Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 21 The case stems from an April 10, 2013 incident in which Defendant hotel telephoned the 22 Burlingame Police Department upon observing that Plaintiff, appeared to be intoxicated and 23 disturbing other guests in the hotel bar/lounge area. Hansen Dec1., Ex. 9 (Police Report). Per the 24 Police Report, once the police arrived at the hotel, other hote} guests identified Plaintiff to the 25 officers, stating she had been “causing problems all night.” Id. When the police approached and 26 questioned Plaintiff, who was having difficulty walking at the time, she became belligerent, 27 screamed Obscenities in one of the police officer’s face, and then continued yelling at both 28 responding officers. Id. The reporting officer smelled a “strong odor” of alcohol on Plaintiff’s 1.EGAL:06142-1I26fl240533.l . _1_ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT breath. Id. The hotel bartender reported Plaintiff was “foaming from her mouth.” Id. Unable to calm her down, the police arrested Plaintiff for public intoxication. Id. Plaintifi‘ continued “screaming and rambling about various topics” during transport to the police station. Id. When the police asked her name, Plaintiff provided a false identity, insisting her name was Cara Mia, which it turns out is the name of a company she owns. Id. When the police returned to the hotel \OOOQQM-w—I after the arrest, the bartender gave the police a box filled with personal items Plaintiff lefi behind in the bar/lounge. Id. The police later searched her personal belongings and, together with two forms of identification that revealed Plaintiffs true name, found a bag containing coCaine. Id. At some point, a hotel employee escorted two police officers up to Plaintifi’s hotel room for the purpose of placing her personal items in the room. It is unclear whether the hotel employee LLP or a police officer initially suggested putting Plaintiffs belongings in her room, but the police HI—lD—‘H WNHC officers strongly recommended doing so, for the reason that otherwise, her belongings would have 6250 700 BERMAN 356 94520-7982 SUITE a. 925 been taken to the police department and stored in an evidence locker, and Plaintiff would have PM ROAD, atLaw 0 HENNING3400 43 I—l ' CALIFORNIA been unable to retrieve them for up to a week. After knocking on the room door and receiving no PASS Attorney: response, the hotel employee opened the door and the police announced their presence, stating 222 U] n—n 925 WILLOW SMITH, Plaintiffs colleague, Mr. Alkus, happened to be in the CONCORD, 0‘ n—- TELEPHONE 14-01 they were dropping off personal items. room and announced his presence, and the police officers requested to speak with him. The WOOD, \1 .— 0° —- parties dispute whether Mr. Alkus then consented to the officers entering the room. When they -- *0 did, they noticed cocaine visible on the room counter, and Mr. Alkus was arrested. Plaintiff was NO ultimately charged with public intoxication, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), and for N --providing the police a false identity. The criminal charges were ultimately dropped in the face of NN Plaintiffs challenge to the admissibility of the cocaine evidence. This civil lawsuit against the Nm "hotel ensued. NA Plaintifi’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the hotel initially alleged breach of an N u: implied contract (essentially, the hotel’s alleged failure to respect Plaintiff s privacy) and several N as tort claims, all arising from the foregoing incident. The Court sustained Defendant‘s Demurrer Nq without leave to amend to the tort causes of action on grounds Defendant’s phone call to the police N 0° and cooperation with their investigation is privileged under Civil Code Sect. 47(b). The breach of LEGAL:06l42-1126fl240533.l‘ .2- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT implied contract claim survived the Demurrer, and is the sole remaining claim. The issue presented by this motion is whether Defendant, under the circumstances that took place on April l0, 2013, can be held liable for breaching an alleged implied contract with Plaintiff to respect her I privacy. The Court finds Plaintiffs breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law. The issue is not whether hotel guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Rather, it is whether, by operating a hotel, Defendant impliedly agreed that in the event an intoxicated person appeared to be disturbing other guests, Defendant would (a) not call the police, (b) not cooperate with a police investigation, including giving the investigating officers personal items that the guest, once '10 arrested, appeared to have lefi behind,'and (c) not open Plaintiffs hotel room door to safeguard LLP ll her personal belongings. For many of the same reasons underlying the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer (Disharoon Decl., Ex. B), under these circumstances and in light of the 8250 700 12 BERMAN 356 94520-7982 SUITE l3 evidence presented, Defendant’s act of summoning the police and cooperating with their 925 & Law FM ROAD. 0 investigation cannot form the basis for civil liability, whether couched as a tort or a breach of at HENNING3400 14 CALIFORNIA PASS Attorneys 222 15 alleged implied contract. A contrary finding would be irreconcilable with the public policy of 925 WILLOW SMITH. CONCORD. 1401 16 encouraging access to and c00peration with law enforcement. Forro Precision, Inc. v. Int ’1 7515m Further, hindering a police WOOD, I7 Business Machines Corp. (9111 Cir. 1982) .673 F.2d 1045, 1054. 18 investigation itself could be unlawful. Penal Code Sect. 148(a). Plaintiff contends Defendant 19 went beyond mere cooperation by proactively volunteering (giving) the police the personal items 20 she appeared to leave in the bar/lounge. Merely operating a hotel cannot be considered an implied 21 promise that if a person/guest were arrested, the hotel would not give the police personal items the 22 arrested person had in their possession. There is no evidence any hotel employee searched 23 Plaintiff s belongings, asked the police to do so, or did anything other than give them to the 24 police. The police, not the hotel, found the cocaine when they searched Plaintiff’s 25 belongings. Hansen Decl., Ex. 9 (Police Report); UMF 8. 26 Nor can it reasonably be said the hotel impliedly promised it would not, under these 27 circumstances, open Plaintiffs hotel room to safeguard her personal belongings for her 28 return. ,First, it is undisputed Plaintiff was already in custody, and thus there was no risk of LEGAL206142-1126f7240533J -3- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUWARY JUDGMENT disturbing her. Opp. at 4; Hansen Decl., Ex. 9(Police Report). Whether the hotel employee or the police officer initially suggested placing her belongings in the room does not change the analysis. The officers testified they strongly recommended placing Plaintiff’s belongings in the room for her own benefit. UMF 9; Hansen Decl., Ex. 11 (Officer Pene testifying that if Plaintiff’s personals were taken to the police station, they would have been stored in an evidence locker, and Plaintiff, who was likely to be released in 4-5 hours, would have been unable to retrieve them for \OOOVQKJIAWN up to a week). A hotel has an obligation to protect guest property, and the right to enter rooms for reasons related to their duties. People v. Minervini (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 832, 840 (hotel management retains control over all premises, including rooms occupied by guests, and has the 10 right to enter rooms to safeguard property). There is no evidence here the hotel employee LLP ll intended to do anything other than safeguard Plaintifi’s property and insure it would be available 100 12 to Plaintiff upon her release. Hansen Decl., Ex. 9 (stating that after knocking on the door and 9253568250 HERMAN 94520-7982 SUITE & l3 hearing no response, the employee opened it, and the officer announced: “Burlingame Police FAX ROAD. atLaw 9 14 CALIFORNIA HENNING Department, dropping off items inside the room”). The issue of whether Mr. Alkus, who PASS 2223400 Attorneys 15 happened to be in the room, thereafter consented to the officers entering to speak with him does 925 WILLOW SMITH. CONCORD. l6 not change the outcome. The police officer, not the hotel employee, decided to enter and speak 1401TELEPHONE There is no evidence the hotel employee played any role in that decision, and the WOODI 17 with the witness. 18 hotel had no implied contractual duty to interfere with a police officer’s felony investigation. 19 As an alleged third-party beneficiary, Plaintifi' argues Defendant's internal policies as a 20 franchisee of the Hilton hotel chain, which were never known or disclosed to Plaintiff prior to this 21 lawsuit, created an implied obligation on Defendant to first approach an intoxicated guest and 22 attempt to resolve any problem before resorting to calling the police, and that Defendant breached 23 this obligation on April 10, 2013 by summoning the police “at the drop of a hat” and treating 24 Plaintiff as a “common criminal.” This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff provides no support for 25 the argument that an internal hotelpolicy, which was unknown to Plaintiff, created an implied 26 contract to conduct a sit—down with Plaintiff before seeking police assistance. Nor did Plaintiff 27 plead a third-party beneficiary theory in this case. Further, such an alleged duty is irreconcilable 28 with the important policy of encouraging citizens to seek police assistance, and generally lEGAL:06142-1126I7240533.l _4_ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT providing them immunity fi'om liability for doing so. Plaintifi' clairns a distinction between .summoning the police (clearly a protected right) and the hotel’s alleged act of “bending over backwards" to assist the police investigation. This argument fails as there is no evidence the hotel did anything other than reasonably cooperate with the investigation. \OWNOLh-F-WNO—I The Court also finds that recognizing the suggested implied contract in this situation would be contrary to public policy. Although the Court did not dispose of the contract claim on Demurrer, many of the same policy rationales underlying the Sect. 47(b) privilege support the conclusion that Plaintiffs implied contract claim should fail as a matter of law. The Sect. 47(b) litigation privilege has in some cases been applied to preclude breach of contract claims. See discussion in Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4'h 763 (involving an express covenant not LLP to sue). The rationale for courts generally excluding its application to contract claims, as opposed 100 9253568250 to torts, is largely based on the notion it would be inequitable to grant immunity to a party who has BERMAN 94520-7982 SUITE 8i performed an act it expressly promised not to do. That is, courts have been reluctant to grant a FAX Law ROAD. 0 at CALIFORNIA privilege to breach an express covenant. See, e.g.,Wentland v. Wass (2005) 126 Cal.App.4'9h 1484 HENNING PASS Attorneys (holding that although making disparaging statements in the course of litigation would normally 9252223400 WILLOW SMITH. be privileged under Sect. 47(b), the privilege does not apply where the party expressly promised, CONCORD. 1401TElEPHotE WOOD. in a written contract, not to make such statements); NNNNNNMNNu—IHHHH—i—a—is—av—A Vivian v.Labrucherie (20l3) 214 Cal.App.4'h 267, 276-77 (the litigation privilege can apply to contract claims so long as its application furthers the policy of the privilege, and the contract in question does not “clearly prohibit” the conduct at issue). Here, the alleged contract is implied, not express, and the actions taken by the hotel that purportedly constitute a breach are the same acts the Court held are immune from tort . liability.Thus, whether privileged or not, many of the same policy reasons underlying Sect. 47(b) support the conclusion here that Defendant, in calling the police, cooperating with their investigation, and opening Plaintiff‘s door to safeguard her personal items, did not breach any implied contract with Plaintiff. The Court acknowledges Defendant’s arguments regarding causation and damages, but need not reach those issues to grant the motion. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs evidence are ruled upon as follows: LEGAL:06 l42-l 126/72405311 -5_ , [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Obj. No. 1, Dec]. of Caroline Maneatis. OVERRULED. The objection is overbroad 2 because it covers the entire declaration. The objections do not apply to the entire declaration. 3‘ Obj. Nos. 2 through 6, “Hilton Brand Standards,” lounge receipts, motion to suppress, ‘ 4 concession to motion to suppress, Hilton’s “H.E.A.R.T. model.” OVERRULED. The Court 5 agrees these documents are of marginal relevance, if any. However, the Court has considered 6 them‘in ruling on the motion. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: ’52 (9x! ,2017 10 LLP “ RICHARD H. DuBOlS 8250 700 12 Judge of the Superior Court BERMAN 356 94520-7982 SUITE 925 8n 13 FM Law ROAD. 31 0 HENNING3400 14 CALIFORNIA PASS Attorneys 222 ' 15 925 WILLOW SMITH. CONCORD. more 16 1401 WOOD. l7 18 19 20 i 21 if 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEGALfl6142-1126n240533J _6_ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT