(2) The right to privacy tort was recognized in 1890 based on the trend in tort law to extend protection to "`the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others.'" ( Hill v. Appellants did not state a cause of action for invasion of privacy. Appellants abandoned their appeal from this judgment.ġ. However, these publisher defendants were dismissed following their motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. In addition to respondents, appellants named Lee Enterprises, Inc., Lee Enterprises Newspapers, Inc., and Hanford Sentinel, Inc., the publishers of the Coalinga Record, as defendants. Due to severe losses, David closed the 20-year-old family business.īased on the publication of the Ode, appellants filed the underlying complaint alleging causes of action for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellants received death threats and a shot was fired at the family home, forcing the family to move out of Coalinga. *1129 The community reacted violently to the publication of the Ode. Cynthia had not stated her last name in her online journal. The Ode was attributed to Cynthia, using her full name. The Ode was published in the Letters to the Editor section of the Coalinga Record. Pond was the editor of the Coalinga Record. The day after Cynthia removed the Ode from her online journal, appellants learned that Campbell had submitted the Ode to the local newspaper, the Coalinga Record, by giving the Ode to his friend, Pamela Pond. Respondent, Roger Campbell, was the principal of Coalinga High School and an employee of respondent, Coalinga-Huron Unified School District. However, Cynthia's parents, appellants David and Maria Moreno, and Cynthia's sister, appellant Araceli Moreno, were living in Coalinga. At the time, Cynthia was attending the University of California at Berkeley. Six days later, Cynthia removed the Ode from her journal. The Ode opens with "the older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga" and then proceeds to make a number of extremely negative comments about Coalinga and its inhabitants. 967.)įollowing a visit to her hometown of Coalinga, appellant, Cynthia Moreno, wrote "An ode to Coalinga" (Ode) and posted it in her online journal on. ) However, contentions, deductions or conclusions of law will not be accepted as true. This court must give the complaint a reasonable interpretation and assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. Since the appeal is from the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, the facts are derived from the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed in part and reversed in part. Under the circumstances here, a jury should determine whether the alleged conduct was outrageous. As discussed in the nonpublished portion, the trial court should have overruled the demurrer to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Rather, once posted on, this article was available to anyone with Internet access. The facts contained in the article were not private. *1128 (1) As discussed in the published portion of this opinion, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend to appellants' invasion of privacy cause of action. Appellants further argue that the person who submitted the article to the newspaper did so with the intent of punishing appellants and thus they have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellants note that the republication included the author's last name whereas the posting did not. The trial court concluded not and sustained the demurrer to appellants' complaint without leave to amend.Īppellants contend the republication constituted a public disclosure of private facts that were not of legitimate public concern and thus was an invasion of privacy. The issue presented by this appeal is whether an author who posts an article on can state a cause of action for invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against a person who submits that article to a newspaper for republication. *1127 Law Offices of Paul Kleven and Paul Kleven for Plaintiffs and Appellants.Īuchard & Stewart and Paul Auchard for Defendants and Respondents. F054138.Ĭourt of Appeals of California, Fifth District. HANFORD SENTINEL, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. 172 Cal.App.4th 1125 (2009) _ Cal.Rptr.3d _ CYNTHIA MORENO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |