*1 Jan. S105483. [No. 2004.] MULDER, P.
ROBERT Appellant, al., et PILOT AIR FREIGHT Defendants Respondents.
Counsel Gubner, Ezra Brutzkus Robert Ezra and G. Michael Jackson for Appellant. Kuluva, Serota
Bragg, Dziesinski, & R. Sydnee Singer; & Bragg Robert A. and Jennifer Bragg A. Riso for Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion GEORGE, case, In the in the case of J. Federal Bank 244], also Cal.Rptr.2d filed today, we granted review to determine whether the Civil Code (b) (section 47(b)),1 for communica- tions made in legislative, judicial, or other official proceed-
[1] Statutory references to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated. when a citizen contacts law enforcement to statements made ings, applies of another person. report suspected part Mulder, case, dealer in salvage Robert P. commercial In this Covert, material, that he after Steve was arrested defendant Police of defendant Pilot Air contacted the recorder that Mulder was report Department Mulder that defendants knew had been stolen from Pilot Air Freight. *3 had indicating legitimately or have known of information that Mulder should a man who had it from bought the recorder from flight acquired failed the of that of Air but that defendants to inform police Pilot to to the arrest Covert According allegations, information. Mulder’s prior recorder, but Mulder to the did flight entered into with negotiations purchase the Mulder’s concerning Mulder that Covert had contacted police not inform and of the A was ultimately agreed upon, possession equipment. price two Los officers entered on undercover January police the and defendants’ check as for Mulder’s office tendered payment The other officers. officers eight recorder. but returned They departed a arrest in the and and executed warrant for his handcuffed -searched Mulder that, as a consequence of witnesses. The presence complaint arrest, times court where the Mulder “had to numerous in criminal the appear a the case.” final result was dismissal of and Pilot a Covert Air naming Mulder filed July complaint
On He and defendants. causes of for false imprisonment Freight distress, had that defendants been intentional infliction emotional asserting the malice the information that was motivated when by they supplied He damages, including the by Angeles police. sought for his arrest loss business opportunities, for loss of damages, reputation, punitive humiliation, and emotional distress. or, alternative, summary for summary judgment
Defendants moved court, to that the was limited the determining The trial issue adjudication. 47(b) shielded established section by whether the absolute question privilege in the conduct in to reporting plaintiff recorder, the on judgment denominated motion as one of their stolen flight in briefing opposed judg- After which supplemental plaintiff the pleadings. allege to leave to amend the complaint the ment on pleadings requested the the judgment court granted of action for malicious prosecution, 47(b). The court on the section by relying pleadings, the un- the complaint, finding request to amend request denied plaintiff’s the trial of the notice of filing appeal, hearing At timely. subsequent to amend it should have some concern that permitted court expressed the complaint.
Because the trial court treated the motion for aas summary judgment motion for on the the Court of did not judgment consider pleadings, evidence in in or motion for proffered support opposition summary but judgment, confined its review to of the The complaint. court affirmed the to the extent that it determined that appellate judgment barred causes of action for false plaintiff’s imprisonment time, intentional infliction of emotional At the distress. same reversed the trial order court’s for leave to denying plaintiff’s request amend the and remanded for further on the merits of complaint proceedings that the trial court erred in request, determining motion on denying The latter element procedural grounds. Appeal’s not before us. For the reasons stated in our opinion with the Court of
the trial court causes of action for false intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred the absolute 47(b). As we explained *4 Bank, Federal 350, supra, 32 Cal.4th we with the great weight authority our Courts of that concludes the “ 47(b) to a communication applies ‘concerning possible wrongdoing, made to an official governmental agency such as a local police department, ... communication designed that [if the] ....’” prompt entity Bank, v. (Hagberg Federal supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. maj. opn. California J.) conclusion, George, Such a “serves explained, important interest of public securing channels of communication open between citizens and law enforcement and other officials public charged (Id. investigating 372.) at remedying wrongdoing.” p.
Plaintiff contends that by section should not bar a action for false That statute bars tort imprisonment. communications, actions based on privileged with the of a cause of exception action for malicious v. Anderson (Silberg (1990) 50 Cal.3d prosecution. 215-216 365].) Cal.Rptr. In Bank, Federal 372-375, 32 Cal.4th at we declined to add a further pp. for the tort of false
exception imprisonment, does not supply any us to conclude otherwise. in the Finally, concluded, case reasonably based upon complaint, claim for false based upon privi leged communications with the rather than on noncommunicative conduct on defendants’ part. reasons,
For the foregoing is affirmed. Kennard, J., Chin, J., Moreno, J., concurred.
BROWN, J., in my dissenting opinion I dissent.For reasons stated 350, also filed FSB absolutely I today, disagree reports suspected Rather, (b). under Code section subdivision such reports Civil privileged (c), or to a under either are subject qualified privilege for over a existing century. California common law Baxter, J., J., concurred. Werdegar,