Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case 22SMCV00098 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV00098, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00098 Hearing Date: February 3, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Miller v. Hampton Inn, Case No. 22SMCV00098

Hearing Date February 3, 2023

Defendant Palmetto Hospitality’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Miller, who is disabled and uses an electric wheelchair, stayed for six months in a handicap accessible room at the Hampton Inn in Santa Monica. She alleges a sliding door in the bathroom fell, striking her and pinning her in a doorway. She alleges the hotel denied her requests for reasonable accommodations, and the hotel and its amenities were inaccessible and/or dangerous. Defendant Palmetto Hospitality demurs to causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209. Additionally, the conduct must be directed at the plaintiff or occur in their presence. Ess v. Eskaton Properties, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 130.

Palmetto argues that, as a matter of law, the allegations supporting the fourth cause of action are not “outrageous.” The complaint specifically alleges hotel staff was aware a disabled guest was on the premises, and Miller’s repeated requests for accommodations and/or assistance were denied, subjecting her to discomfort, inconvenience, and danger. E.g., FAC ¶¶41-45. Miller allegedly notified hotel staff about lack of insulation on the sink pipes and lack of waterproof strips at the shower, yet no repairs or accommodations were made. A reasonable finder of fact could conclude this constitutes outrageous conduct. Palmetto argues Miller failed to allege severe emotional distress. The FAC alleges Miller suffered “anxiety, fear, nervousness, shock, horror, and worry” as a result of the alleged failure to accommodate her. Complaint ¶78. For purposes of pleading, this is sufficient. OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 10 days.

False Imprisonment

A cause of action for false imprisonment is an intentional tort, but it can result from negligence. Bocanegra v. Jakubowski (2015) 241 Cal.App.4^th 848, 855. This can occur when, for example, a store owner honestly but mistakenly detains a customer believed to be a shoplifter, or if a police officer wrongly but honestly prolongs an imprisonment. Id. The detention itself must be intentional, but the justification for the detention can be negligent. Id.

Miller does not allege Palmetto intentionally acted to detain or imprison her. She alleges their negligence deprived her of freedom of movement, but not that they intentionally restricted her movement. As stated above, the detention itself must be intentional to successfully plead a cause of action for false imprisonment. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.