Selman Breitman Defeats Emotional Distress Claim on Summary Adjudication Leading to Favorable Resolution of Contractual Breach Claims
The case arose from the purported rescission of a lease for a commercial horse property. Plaintiffs brought causes of action seeking to establish the validity of the lease as well as a court order for monetary damages and/or specific performance. The individual property owner/manager defendants in the matter filed cross-claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and declaratory relief seeking to invalidate the subject lease on the grounds that it was rescinded. Selman Breitman’s Benedict Idemundia represented the cross-defendants and ultimately filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the emotional distress claim. The motion centered on defendants/cross-complainants’ claims being largely based upon speculation highlighting the absence of admissible evidentiary support needed to create a triable issue of fact.
The Court, adopting in its ruling most of the law and arguments cited by Ben, granted the motion finding that even when viewing the evidence of cross-defendants’ conduct in a light most favorable to defendants/cross-complainants’, it could not reasonably be found to constitute actionable, outrageous conduct. The granting of this motion eliminated the monetary damages claims asserted by defendants/cross-complainants. Ultimately, the remainder of the case was resolved at the start of trial.
For more information about this case and its implications, please contact Elaine Fresh or Benedict Idemundia. Contact information is below.
Selman Breitman provides this information for educational purposes. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case. This information should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.