Case Number: BC670702 Hearing Date: March 15, 2018 Dept: 53

JACOB BLALOCK, et al. vs. HALT GOLD GROUP, LLC , et al.; BC670702, March 15, 2018

[Tentative] Order RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendants Halt Gold Group, LLC, Mike Celano, Charley Chartoff, and John “Jack” Hanney’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as to the Sixth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Jacob Blalock and Benjamin Novack (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action on August 1, 2017 against Defendants Halt Gold Group, LLC (“Halt Gold Group”), Mike Celano (“Celano”), Charley Chartoff, and John “Jack” Hanney (“Hanney”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on November 29, 2017, and asserts ten causes of action stemming from Plaintiffs’ employment with Halt Gold Group.
Defendants now demur to the sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that it fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiffs oppose.

DISCUSSION

To prevail on an IIED claim, plaintiff must prove: “(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). “[L]iability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities, but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” (Alcorn v. Anbro Eng’g, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499, fn. 5.)

The conduct alleged by Plaintiffs in support of their IIED cause of action is as follows: 1) Plaintiffs were discharged and retaliated against for challenging illegal and inappropriate conduct by Celano; 2) Plaintiffs were subjected to Celano’s inappropriate comments; and 3) Plaintiffs were defamed by Halt Gold Group and Hanney to other Halt Gold Group employees as well as customers. The Court finds that none of the alleged conduct is “extreme and outrageous” as to constitute an IIED cause of action. For one, the conduct was not directed towards Plaintiffs. (See Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 102 [“[t]he law limits [IIED claims] to egregious conduct toward plaintiff proximately caused by defendant”] [emphasis in original].) The inappropriate comments were alleged to have been witnessed by Plaintiffs and/or about Plaintiffs but were directed towards others, including Celano’s non-party assistant. (FAC, ¶¶ 18-19.) Similarly, the allegedly defamatory statements were made about Plaintiffs but were not directed towards them. (FAC, ¶¶ 29-33, 44.) Further, Plaintiffs’ contention that conduct amounting to retaliation in violation of FEHA was sufficient to state an IIED cause of action is belied by the case to which Plaintiffs cite. As noted by Defendants, in Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Court of Appeal held that the retaliatory conduct at issue must also satisfy the elements of an IIED cause of action. (Id. at p. 101.) Indeed, the Court of Appeal found that a triable issue of fact for an IIED claim existed as to one of the defendants because this defendant “ostracized Light in the workplace, encouraged Light to lie to investigators, pursued Light at home and in the office to determine whether Light did so, and verbally and physically attacked Light after Light disobeyed.” (Id. at p. 102.) The Court finds that the allegations in the FAC do not rise to this level of extreme and outrageous conduct.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Halt Gold Group, LLC, Mike Celano, Charley Chartoff, and John “Jack” Hanney’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as to the Sixth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs are to file an amended complaint, if any, within 10 days of this Order.

Defendants are to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 15, 2018

_____________________________

Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court