Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 20-01173705, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint (TAC)

Tentative Ruling:  Defendants William Payne, Sr., Alison Payne, and William Payne, Jr. Demurrer to the TAC is OVERRULED in its entirety.  Plaintiff sufficiently pleads each cause of action addressed in the demurrer.

Third COA (Conspiracy):  “The elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) the formation of a group of two or more persons who agreed to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act; (2) a wrongful act committed pursuant to the agreement; and (3) resulting damages.”  (City of Industry v. City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 212, as modified (Aug. 24, 2011).)

Here, each element of a civil conspiracy is alleged.  Plaintiff alleges Payne conspired with Green and others to “carry out the vicious, unprovoked attack” on Plaintiff.  (TAC, ¶ 44.)  Plaintiff also alleges Payne was “aware that each of them planned and agreed to follow, stalk, attack, falsely imprison, and videotape the attach” on Plaintiff.  (TAC, ¶ 45.)  Plaintiff alleges he was in fact cornered in the locker room by Green and Payne, attacked, and video recorded.  (TAC, ¶¶14-15.)  Last, Plaintiff alleges that as a direct result of the conspiring conduct, he suffered physical and emotional harm.  (TAC, ¶¶ 16, 26, 46-47.)

Fourth COA (False Light):  “False light is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed.”  (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264, as modified (Apr. 19, 2017).)  “A ‘false light’ claim, like libel, exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy and assumes the audience will recognize it as such.”  (Ibid.)

“A ‘false light’ cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice where malice is required for the libel claim.”  (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264, as modified (Apr. 19, 2017).)  “Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.”  (Civ. Code, § 45.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges the video of the fight constitutes false light as it was recorded without Plaintiff’s consent, shared with students at Plaintiff’s school and on social media, and exposed him to ridicule and obloquy in that it portrays Plaintiff as a willing participant in the altercation and creates a false impression of Plaintiff.  (TAC, ¶¶ 21-22 and 50.)  Plaintiff’s allegations that the attack and related recording were intended to ridicule, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiff along with his allegations regarding the plan to corner and record the fight constitutes sufficient malice to survive the demurrer.  (TAC, ¶¶ 14-16, 21.)  As a result of the publication, Plaintiff suffers from emotional distress that affects him mentally and physically.  (TAC, ¶ 52.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff sufficiently pleads all requisite elements for his false light claim to survive the demurrer.

Fifth COA (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress):

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.  (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.)  “A defendant’s conduct is said to be ‘outrageous’ when it is so “extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.”  (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff sufficiently pleads each element of his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.  First, Plaintiff alleges Payne’s conduct in conspiring to carry out a vicious unprovoked attack, cornering Plaintiff in the locker room without a means to escape, recording the incident, and cheering Carson Green as he beat Plaintiff unconscious constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.  (TAC, ¶¶ 14-17.)  Such conduct sufficiently “exceeds all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.”  Such intolerance is evidenced by the alleged police involvement.  Second, Plaintiff sufficiently pleads that he suffered from severe or extreme emotional distress as a result of the incident.  For example, Plaintiff was humiliated, suffers from fear and anxiety, experiences distress when recalling the incident, and seeks treatment from a therapist who specializes in trauma.  (TAC, ¶¶ 26 and 56-58.)  Last, Plaintiff alleges that Payne’s conduct was an actual cause of the severe emotional distress he experiences.  (TAC, ¶¶ 56-58.)

Sixth COA (Violation of Civil Code Section 1714.1): 

Pursuant to Civil Code section 1714.1:

“Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct.”  (Civ. Code, § 1714.1, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and fifth causes of action are sufficiently pleaded against William Payne Jr. such that they survive the demurrer.  As such, William Payne, Sr. and Alison Payne may be held liable pursuant to Civil Code section 1714.1 for any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury relating to those causes of action.

Accordingly, the Demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Defendants William Payne, Sr., Alison Payne, and William Payne, Jr. are ordered to file an answer to the operative Third Amended Complaint within 20 days of the notice of ruling.

Prevailing party to give notice.