Elinski v. Palm Colony Homeowners Assn.
Richard Michael Elinski got into an argument with the manager of the complex where he rented a condominium. The manager called the police, who arrested Elinski for suspected drug use. Elinski subsequently sued the manager, respondent Karen Marie Vaughn, and her employer, Palm Colony Homeowners Association, for false arrest, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The trial court sustained with prejudice respondents' demurrer to the complaint on the ground that Elinski's claims, all of which were premised on Vaughn's telephone call to the police, were barred by the absolute immunity provided by Civil Code[1]section 47, subdivision (b). Elinski appeals from the order of dismissal. He contends (1) that Vaughn's communications with the police were malicious and should therefore be subject to the qualified privilege afforded by subdivision (c) of section 47, as opposed to the absolute privilege conferred by subdivision (b); and (2) that the court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend his complaint to add a cause of action for violation of his civil rights under 42 United States Code section 1983 (42 USC 1983). Court affirm.
Comments on Elinski v. Palm Colony Homeowners Assn.