Davidson v. City of Westminster

17 Citing briefs

  1. Xochitl Nisbet v. American National Red Cross et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 19, 2017

    /// Case 2:16-cv-07342-GW-AS Document 56-2 Filed 06/19/17 Page 35 of 36 Page ID #:354 CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-07342 GW(ASx) 36 DEFS’ STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED MATERIAL FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails because Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants engaged in extreme or outrageous conduct Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209. 13.

  2. Darrell Williams v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims

    Filed June 12, 2017

    To be “outrageous,” the conduct must be “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 209 (1982) (quoting Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co., 24 Cal. 3d 579, 593 (1979)). Liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

  3. HAYES v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

    Respondents’ Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed September 12, 2011

    This Court has not always been consistent in its view that duty must be decided before privilege (or immunity) is addressed: The issues with respect to the city are whetherthe officers owed a duty of care to plaintiff and, if so, whether the city is immunefrom liability. In Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-203, we held that in cases posing these two questions, logic suggests that unless the first is answered in the affirmative, the second does not even arise. Nevertheless, since in this case our views on the issue of duty are highly diversified, but we are in general agreementthat the officers' conduct, if negligent, was immunized by the Government Code, we base our affirmance of the judgmentin favor of the -19- city on the latter ground—suggesting, perhaps,that the life of the law is not logic, but expedience.

  4. Arturo Ramos v. Dli Properties, Llc et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Sandra L. Stevens in Support Thereof

    Filed April 4, 2017

    For conduct to be outrageous, it “ ‘must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated by a civilized community.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Davidson v. City of Westminster 32 Cal.3d 197, 209, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (1982).) None of the actions alleged to have been taken by these Defendants are “outrageous” or so extreme as to “exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated by a civilized community.”

  5. Huskins et al. v. City of Vallejo et al.

    REPLY

    Filed September 1, 2016

    Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 208 (Cal. 1982). Police have no duty to assist, investigate properly, or even to Case 2:16-cv-00603-TLN-EFB Document 16 Filed 09/01/16 Page 12 of 15 CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP 701 University Ave., #110 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 443-4443 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY TO OPP’N TO MTD Case No. 2:16-cv-00603 TLN EFB 8 investigate at all.

  6. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. S.C. (ROSEN)

    Real Party in Interest, Katherine Rosen, Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed March 24, 2016

    “As a general rule, one owes no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 203.) “A duty to control the conductof another or to warn persons endangered by such conduct may arise, however, out of what is called a “special relationship”. ... Such a duty mayariseif ‘(a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other whichgives the other a right to protection.’

  7. (PC) Mitchell, et al. v. Felker et al

    REPLY

    Filed August 21, 2013

    In Davidson v. City of Westminster, police officers staked out a Laundromat in an effort to potentially arrest a man suspected of stabbing three women. Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 200 (1982). The officers observed a man entering the facility “who closely resembled” the suspect.

  8. David V Beckham v. Bauer Publishing Company L P et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Strike Complaint 12

    Filed January 14, 2011

    The elements of a prima facie case of 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.” Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 209 (1982). To meet the first element, a plaintiff must show that the alleged conduct is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in the civilized community.”

  9. Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County et al v. County of Sonoma et al

    MOTION to Dismiss corrected formatting

    Filed November 3, 2009

    To be outrageous, conduct must be so extreme as to “exceed all bounds that are usually tolerated in a civilized society.” Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 208 (Cal. 1982). The SAC does not plead sufficient facts to establish that ICE agents’ conduct was “so extreme as to exceed all bounds that are usually tolerated in a civilized society.”

  10. Native Village of Kivalina et al v. Exxonmobile Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Utility Defendants per Rules 12

    Filed June 30, 2008

    Mere knowledge of another’s conduct (and failure to prevent it) cannot establish concert of action. See, e.g., Davidson v. City of Westminster, 649 P.2d 894, 897 (Cal. 1982); Fiol v. Doellstedt, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1318, 1326 (1996); Ellison v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Union Local 325, 118 P.3d 1070, 1077-78 (Alaska 2005). And “‘parallel or imitative’” conduct is likewise insufficient.