Facts

On Oct. 14, 2004, plaintiff William McNally left his backpack in the food court on the lower level of 725 South Figueroa Street in Los Angeles, and left the area. Security guards found the bag and McNally was questioned about marijuana being found in the bag. McNally alleged that all of his property was returned to him except for a Nikon digital camera he claimed to have in the bag.

Defendant Trizec Properties Inc. owned the building at 725 South Figueroa and contracted with defendant Universal Protection Service (UPS) to provide security for the building. The individual defendants named were Daniel Saenz, Ronald Deskins and Carlos Lopez, all UPS employees.

A vendor found McNally's backpack unattended in the food court and reported it to building management and security. James Carter, a UPS guard at the time, retrieved the bag and took it to the security office, where it was inspected in the presence of Saenz.

Inside the bag, Carter found numerous items, including two containers of marijuana. The guards then called police regarding the marijuana finding and police arrived and questioned McNally. McNally then showed officers a letter that allegedly permitted his use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and he was released.

McNally sued defendants for conversion, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and slander.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
McNally argued security guards falsely imprisoned him, and that he suffered emotional distress from their negligence and slander.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants argued there was no camera in McNally's bag when they inspected it. The defendants also claimed they did not detain McNally, and that their statements made to police about the marijuana were privileged.

Damages

McNally sought more than $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Injuries

McNally claimed he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incident.

Result

The jury found for the defense on all causes of action. The jury found that McNally did own a digital camera on the date of the incident, but that defendants did not take the camera. The jury also found Trizec was negligent. Plaintiff settled defendant's claim for costs of litigation. The plaintiff chose not to appeal.