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
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
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390