Plaintiff actors sued defendant news organization for (1) violation of Cal. Penal Code § 632, (2) common law intrusion, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) trespass, (5) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(a) and (b), and (6) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The Los Angeles litigation attorney sought an injunction under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203. The news organization moved for summary judgment.
Overview
The actors claimed the news organization invaded their privacy by secretly video recording conversations and activities for a sensationalist news story about casting workshops. The actors contended the program made them look like “whores,” or desperate losers on the fringe of the acting community. The claims did not rest solely on what was aired during the “news magazine” program, but focused on the alleged intrusion of privacy rather than the broadcast. The injunction was sought to bar the use of hidden cameras as a “news gathering tool.” Inter alia, the court held that the news organization failed to show the recorded conversations were not confidential within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code § 632. Even though some of the conversations could have been overheard by other students, the actors had a reasonable expectation that the conversations were not being recorded by the news organization, so summary judgment was not appropriate. However the injunction did not issue because it was overly broad and the court questioned whether the actors had standing to sue on behalf of such a broad class of individuals who probably did not share a common factual nexus with the actors.
Outcome
The court granted the news organization’s motion for summary judgment as to the request for an injunction but denied it in all other respects.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of express contract, and violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5 turned on whether debtor and her spouse, as borrowers, had standing to challenge a foreclosure based on alleged violations of a mortgage trust’s pooling and servicing agreement (PSA); [2]-Although the highest state court had not decided the issue, the BAP predicted that it would hold that borrowers lacked standing to challenge assignments of their note and deed of trust based on an alleged violation of the PSA: [3]-In addition to lack of standing, their claim for wrongful foreclosure failed because they did not articulate any prejudice as a result of defendants’ purported lack of authority to commence the foreclosure proceeding; [4]-In dismissing the complaint, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, as amendment would be futile.
Outcome
The panel affirmed the order dismissing a complaint filed by debtor and her spouse with prejudice.