Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims were first recognized in California in the landmark case of State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff (1952) 38 Cal.2d 330.

Although the tort is recognized in California, it is frequently the subject of demurrers during the pleading stage, as it is often poorly plead, and not very well understood.

�A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is �(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.� A defendant�s conduct is �outrageous� when it is so �extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.� And the defendant�s conduct must be �intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.� � (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050�1051.)

��[I]t is generally held that there can be no recovery for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse, without circumstances of aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances.� � (Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1128, internal citations omitted.)

�It is not enough that the conduct be intentional and outrageous. It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.� (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903�904.)

I'm not sure what the harassment involves, but you should speak to an attorney to find out if the conduct you complain about is sufficient to support this cause of action.