Filed 1/17/07 Halisky v. Malmberg Investigations CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
NICHOLAS HALISKY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
LARRY MALMBERG INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY, INC. et al.,
Marc D. Roberts & Associates, Marc D. Roberts and James M. Gilbert for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, Mary G. Whitaker and Jeffrey A. Miller for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiffs Nicholas Halisky and Cathleen Halisky (collectively the Haliskys) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Larry Malmberg Investigations and Security, Inc., and Larry Malmberg (collectively LMI), after their motion for summary judgment was granted. The Haliskys claim that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment on a ground not raised by LMI's motion. They also claim that they produced evidence demonstrating a triable issue of material fact whether LMI negligently interfered with their prospective economic advantage. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On November 10, 2003, the Haliskys filed a fourth amended complaint alleging causes of action against LMI for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. That complaint alleged that the Haliskys had been employed by Victor Valley Community College District (VVCCD) until such time that it notified them that their employment was terminated. It further alleged that a member of the Board of Trustees of VVCCD hired LMI to conduct an investigation of the Haliskys and that LMI published a written report that made false and defamatory statements about the Haliskys to the Board of Trustees of VVCCD.
On August 20, 2004, LMI filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the two causes of action against them based upon the affirmative defense that the report that they prepared and submitted was privileged under Civil Code section 47. While the motion for summary judgment was pending, the Haliskys prepared a fifth amended complaint adding a cause of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage against LMI. Consequently, the trial court could not grant summary judgment but did grant summary adjudication in favor of LMI as to the Haliskys' causes of action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the privilege found in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c).
On February 17, 2005, the Haliskys prepared the operative sixth amended complaint alleging causes of action against LMI for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The Haliskys alleged that when LMI was hired to investigate allegations of wrongdoing against them, they knew or should have known that the Haliskys were long-standing employees of VVCCD and that their economic relationship with their employer would be disrupted if LMI failed to act with reasonable care. They further alleged that LMI â€
Description
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants after their motion for summary judgment was granted. The Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment on a ground not raised by LMI's motion. They also claim that they produced evidence demonstrating a triable issue of material fact whether LMI negligently interfered with their prospective economic advantage. Court affirm.
