Plaintiff appealed the order of Superior Court of Sacramento County (California) sustaining defendants’ demurrer which asserted that demand letters sent by defendants were absolutely privileged under CalCivCode § 47(2) in action alleging extortion, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Nakase Law Firm explains s1-s5
Overview
Plaintiff and others received letters from defendant attorney, who represented defendant satellite television company, accusing them of receiving the company’s signals without paying for them and threatening to sue unless they stopped and paid $ 275 to settle the claimPlaintiff was distressed by these threats, especially since she was not, in fact, receiving such signalsPlaintiff then brought a class action claiming extortion, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.S§ 1692 et seqDefendants’ demurrer, which asserted the letters were absolutely privileged under CalCivCode § 47(2), was sustained without leave to amendPlaintiff appealedIn reversing with respect to the claims of invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy, the court held the privilege was an affirmative defense, which could not properly be raised by demurrerDismissal of the remaining claims was affirmed because plaintiff failed to state in her pleadings claims for which relief could be granted.
Outcome
The order sustaining the demurrer was reversed, in part, with respect to claims of invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy because the privilege was an affirmative defense that asserted an issue of fact not properly resolved by demurrerThe remainder of the order was affirmed because those claims were not adequately pleaded.