Bazargan v. HiltonUniversalCity & Towers

Filed 1/17/07  Bazargan v. Hilton Universal City & Towers CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Robert L. Hess, Judge.  Affirmed. 

            Appleton, Blady & Magnanimo, I. Benjamin Blady, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Bonne, Bridges, Mueler, O'Keefe & Nichols, Margaret M. Holm and Vangi M. Johnson, for Defendant and Respondent David N. Glaser, M.D.

__________________________

            Homayoun Bazargan appeals from the dismissal of his claims against David N. Glaser, M.D., a psychiatrist, for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.  Plaintiff worked as a waiter for defendant Hilton Universal City and Towers (Hilton), and Dr. Glaser interviewed plaintiff in connection with plaintiff's claim against Hilton for discrimination and sexual harassment.  The trial court sustained Dr. Glaser's demurrer to plaintiff's claim for invasion of privacy, and entered summary judgment on his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.  On appeal, plaintiff argues that (1)  his privacy was violated by the coerced psychological exam; (2)  the trial court erred in striking his motion for punitive damages; (3)  factual issues exist with respect to his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4)  Dr. Glaser owed him a duty of care even though Dr. Glaser was not plaintiff's treating physician, and his expert's declaration on the standard of care was insufficient; and (5)  additional discovery belatedly produced by co-defendant Hilton after judgment established the wrongful nature of the psychological examination.  We affirm. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL HISTORY

            Hilton employed plaintiff, who is of Iranian and Turkish descent, as a waiter in 1998.  Plaintiff worked without incident until 1999, when his female co-workers began to tease him, accusing him of having a â€