Facts

Anthony A. Patel filed suit against his ex-wife Sonya Bhatia, the judge who presided over their dissolution proceedings, the Honorable Randall Pacheco, and Sumeet Bhatia in relation to Patel's custody and parenting time of Patel and Sonya Bhatia's minor children.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Patel alleged that defendants were involved in a conspiracy to deprive him of equal custody and equal parenting time of the children he fathered with Sonya. Patel alleged Sumeet Bhatia tapped his phone and monitored his time and visits with his children, and this constituted an intrusion into private matters. Further, Patel claimed Sonya and Sumeet did not allow him access to his minor children at times the children were scheduled to be with him, and these actions constituted custody and parent interference. Patel also contended that Sumeet made defamatory statements to others calling him a dead-beat dad, a neglectful father, and questioning whether Patel was truly the father of the children. In addition, Patel asserted causes of action for violation of civil rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations. Sumeet alleged that all causes of action failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him and were time-barred. Sumeet also claimed that two settlement agreements signed by Patel governed the causes of action at issue. Further, Sumeet argued Patel's civil rights claim was pending against him in two separate lawsuits, making it subject to special demurrer. Lastly, Sumeet argued that Patel's custody and parent interference claim was not cognizable under California law and was being addressed in an ongoing family law case involving the parties.

Result

The court sustained Sumeet's demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of Sumeet. The court found Patel failed to allege Sumeet denied him full and equal access to any specific accommodation, advantage, facility, privilege, or service based on disability. The court found Patel failed to allege any outrageous conduct that caused him emotional distress, and the allegation that Sumeet aided and assisted in tapping his phone and monitored his time with his children was insufficient to establish intentional intrusion into Patel's private life, seclusion, or solitude. The court also found Patel did not specifically allege any actions Sumeet took to bar access to his children, and Patel presented no specific statement of fact publicized by Sumeet that could support a defamation claim.