This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Trespass

Tom Cruz v. Pauline M. Cox

Published: Dec. 30, 2006 | Result Date: Feb. 17, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC841153 Bench Decision –  $4,000

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Craig A. Sherman
(Law Office of Craig A. Sherman)


Defendant

Robert F. Wiggins

Barbara J. Shorf


Facts

Tom Cruz and Pauline Cox owned properties that were adjacent to one another on Rexford Drive in San Diego. Cruz filed a lawsuit against Cox, claiming tresspass, nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant committed deliberate acts for the sole purpose of harassing him and disrupting his sleep. These acts consisted of using her trash cans to make excessive noise and throwing unwanted items onto his property. The plaintiff tried to solve the problem by calling authorities and the city's code enforcement department, but probable cause was not found. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's intent to frustrate the plaintiff was evident from the fact that her acts were committed in a repetitive manner. Thereafter, the plaintiff was successful in obtaining a three-year protective order that prohibited the defendant from making noice before 7 a.m. or from harassing the plaintiff in any way, shape, or form. Despite the order, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant found new ways to harass him. She also used her property in unpermitted ways such as for storage and parking of a recreational vehicle. These acts made the defendant's property unattractive. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant complained to the city that the plaintiff was the one who used his property in ways that violated city ordinances.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was the instigator of the conflict and that he was the one who initially began harassing and embarassing the defendant. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff violated her privacy by installing video cameras on his property for the purpose of monitoring her activities.

Specials in Evidence

The plaintiff sought $51,000 for 300 days of missed work.

Damages

The plaintiff sought punitive damages and $2,000 for out-of-pocket expenses.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed he suffered from emotional distress.

Result

$4,000 on the nuisance claim. The plaintiff also recovered $6,781 in costs.

Length

four days


#104560

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390