Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01726/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01726-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO GUILARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREA MONTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01726-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT 

MONTI'S MOTION TO DISMISS; 

VACATING HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 32

Before the Court is defendant Andrea Monti's ("Monti") "Motion . . . to Dismiss 

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint," filed September 14, 2016. Plaintiff Eduardo 

Guilarte has not filed opposition.1 Having read and considered the papers filed in support 

of the motion, the Court finds the matter suitable for decision on the moving papers, 

VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 6, 2017, and rules as follows:

1. Contrary to Monti's argument, the First Cause of Action, titled "Slander Per Se," 

is not subject to dismissal, as the alleged statements by Monti on which plaintiff relies 

reasonably could be understood as accusing plaintiff of committing criminal trespass. 

See Cal. Penal Code § 602(l). Additionally, plaintiff has sufficiently cured the deficiency 

identified in the Court's order of August 2, 2016, specifically, by alleging Monti was out of 

the state on "vacation" for "at least three days" during the applicable one-year limitations 

period. (See Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶¶ 9-12, Exs. B-C); 2 Cal. Civ. Proc. 

 

1

The deadline for plaintiff to file opposition was December 2, 2016. (See Order, 

filed November 29, 2016.)

2Plaintiff alleges the assertedly slanderous statements were made "[o]n or about 

April 3, 2015" (see SAC ¶¶ 22-23), and the initial complaint was filed on April 6, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-01726-MMC Document 44 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Code § 351 (providing that "if, after [a] cause of action accrues, [the defendant] departs 

from the State, the time of his absence is not part of the time limited for the 

commencement of the action"); Filet Menu, Inc. v. Cheng, 71 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 1283 

(1999) (holding § 351's tolling provisions applicable only where "out-of-state travel [is]

unrelated to interstate commerce," such as "vacation trips").

2. The Second Cause of Action, titled "False Light," is subject to dismissal. As 

explained in the Court's prior order, where, as here, a false light claim is based solely on 

allegations supporting a claim for slander, the false light claim is "superfluous and should 

be dismissed." See Kappellas v. Kaufman, 1 Cal. 3d 20, 35 n.16 (1969).

3. The Third Cause of Action, titled "False Imprisonment," is subject to dismissal, 

as plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiency identified in the Court's prior order, 

specifically, a failure to allege facts to support a finding that Monti deprived plaintiff of his 

"personal liberty" by "unlawful means," i.e., "by means of physical force, threat of force or 

of arrest, confinement by physical barriers, or by means of any other form of 

unreasonable duress." See Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 701, 715 (1994) (setting 

forth elements of tort of false imprisonment).

4. The Fourth Cause of Action, titled "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," 

is subject to dismissal, as plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiency identified in the Court's 

prior order, specifically, a failure to allege facts to support a finding that Monti engaged in 

conduct "so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all 

possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a 

civilized community." See Melorich Builders, Inc. v. Superior Court, 160 Cal.App.3d 931, 

936 (1984).

5. The Fifth Cause of Action, titled "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress," is 

subject to dismissal, given plaintiff's failure to cure the deficiency identified in the Court's 

prior order, specifically, a failure to allege facts to support a finding that Monti owed 

plaintiff a duty. See Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072 (1992) (holding

"negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but the tort of 

Case 3:16-cv-01726-MMC Document 44 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

negligence"; requiring plaintiff alleging entitlement to damages based on "negligent 

causing of emotional distress" to establish all elements of negligence claim, including 

"duty"). As noted in the Court's prior order, a duty did not arise from Monti's alleged 

failure to honor plaintiff's ticket. See North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, 59 

Cal. App. 4th 764, 774 (1997) (citing "general rule" that "where the 'negligent' 

performance of a contract amounts to nothing more than a failure to perform the express 

terms of the contract, the claim is one for breach of contract, not negligence").

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Monti's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth 

Causes of Action as alleged against Monti, the motion is GRANTED.

2. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the First Cause of Action as 

alleged against Monti, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01726-MMC Document 44 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 3