Opinion
22-CV-00161-RAJ
06-28-2023
SIGNE BERGMAN, Plaintiff, v. IVAN MOTO, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 23. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings tort claims against Defendant for assault and battery. See Dkt. # 1. Defendant has counterclaimed for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. # 22. Specifically, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs “extreme and outrageous conduct” consisting of falsely reporting sexual assault to the police inflicted emotional distress. Defendant also sues for defamation. Plaintiff moves for dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four comers of the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which the complaint refers if the document is central to the party's claims and its authenticity is not in question. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
A. Defamation
The elements of a cause of action for defamation in Washington are (1) a false statement; (2) lack of privilege; (3) fault; and (4) damages. Herron v. KING Broadcasting Co., 112 Wash.2d 762, 768, 776 P.2d 98 (1989). Here, the allegations of defamation are largely conclusory, namely that Plaintiff made false statements that the Defendant abused and assaulted her to police. Dkt. # 22 at 7.
Under RCW 4.24.510, a person who communicates a complaint or information to any branch of government is immune from civil liability for claims based on the communication. Washington state and federal courts have affirmed that the statute provides immunity when persons report information to the police. DiBiasi v. Starbucks Corp., No. 10-35213,414 Fed.Appx. 948 (Mem) (9th Cir. 2011) (employee complaint to J police regarding customer behavior was a matter of concern to the police); Cornu-Labat v. Merred, No. 13-35158, 580 Fed.Appx. 557 (Mem) (9th Cir. 2014) (call to law enforcement was protected from liability).
Further, even if Defendant had shown a defamation claim, he alleges only conclusory allegations related to his damages. He fails to provide any specific facts to show that any entity took adverse action against him because of the alleged false statement. As such, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to meet the damages element of a defamation claim. As requested, the Court permits leave to file a counterclaim for abuse of process. Dkt. # 25 at 5.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
To prove outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress, a complainant must establish the following elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) the actual result of severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wn.2d 192, 195, 66 P.3d 630 (2003).
The Court will also dismiss this claim. Washington courts have stated that seeking legal process, even with malicious intent, was not “so outrageous in character, [and] so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,” and thus fails to claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Saldviar v. Momah, 145 Wash.App. 365, 390 (2008) (filing suit alleging sexual abuse by a physician, even under false pretenses, did not state claim for outrage). Accordingly, Defendant fails to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss. Defendant may file a First Amended Counterclaim within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order.