In Darin Johnson v. Ralphs Grocery Company, et al. (March 20, 2012) (No. D058312), plaintiff Johnson sued Special Operations International, Inc. (“SOI”), a private security company, and Ralphs Grocery Company (“Ralphs”). SOI contracted with Ralphs to provide security services at the subject store. Ms. Johnson alleged that she was falsely accused of shoplifting a tablecloth and firewood, handcuffed, detained for about two hours, and paraded through the Ralphs store by two security officers in a humiliating manner.
After Johnson successfully defended herself against the shoplifting charges in criminal court, she sued Ralphs and SOI for malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of extreme emotional distress. Bradley & Gmelich represented SOI and its two security officers, and filed a motion to dismiss Johnson's claim. The trial court agreed and struck Johnson’s malicious prosecution claim as an improper strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”). The trial court also ruled that Johnson failed to present sufficient facts to support her emotional distress claims. Plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling. Lena J. Marderosian, Esq. of Bradley & Gmelich successfully argued this matter before the Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District on behalft of SOI and its two security officers.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s rulings. In ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court must decide whether the defendant has shown that the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity; and whether the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on that claim. The Court of Appeal found that SOI’s act of contacting the police regarding Johnson’s suspected crime was protected activity. While false arrest claims do not arise from protected activity, Johnson did not allege a false arrest cause of action against SOI. Also, the Court of Appeal found that Johnson failed to show a lack of probable cause for SOI’s conduct, as Johnson had no receipt for the firewood she supposedly purchased, and that the Ralphs cashier had no recollection of Johnson paying for it.
As to the emotional distress action, the Court recognized that a plaintiff must first show “outrageous conduct by the defendant” to justify such a claim. SOI’s conduct was not outrageous, as SOI had probable cause to detain Johnson, and Penal Code Section 490.5 allows a merchant to detain a person for a reasonable time to investigate whether a person has unlawfully taken merchandise. Although the SOI employees supposedly told Johnson as she was escorted out of the store, “that’s what you get” and “you’re not welcome to shop here anymore,” the Court explained that mere insulting language does not constitute outrageous conduct.
With this decision, private security companies and shop owners should feel comfortable in instructing their employees to contact local police departments to report possible shoplifting or other crimes they have witnessed. However, they should still be cautious in instructing employees on whether to detain a person suspected of a crime. Further, even though the Court held that insulting language, by itself, will not subject a company to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it would be prudent to train employees to maintain a reasonable level of professionalism when interacting with a potential suspect.
