Eiseman v. Power Toyota Irvine
This case arises out of the identity theft of appellant Robert Eiseman (Eiseman). Approximately one month after Eiseman purchased a car from respondent Power Toyota Irvine (PTI), Armando Corral (Corral) was arrested in Arizona for misrepresenting himself as Eiseman. Believing that PTI was the source of his identity theft, Eiseman and his mother, Anne Eiseman (Anne), initiated this lawsuit against PTI and others,[1]alleging negligence, invasion of privacy, and related causes of action. The trial court granted Toyotas motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact as to any cause of action. Eiseman and Anne appeal, contending that the trial court erred in (1) failing to rule on their request for a continuance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h); and (2) finding no triable issue of material fact.
Court affirm in part, reverse in part and remand the matter with directions. With respect to the Business and Professions Code section 17200, identity theft, conspiracy, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy causes of action, we reverse the trial courts order granting Toyotas motion for summary judgment. In connection with these causes of action, the trial court erred in implicitly denying appellants request for a continuance pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (h). However, the evidence that appellants seek to obtain is irrelevant to Eisemans claim for fraud; thus, a continuance with respect to that cause of action was not required. Because Eiseman failed to establish a triable issue of material fact as to this cause of action, the trial courts order granting summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action is affirmed.
Comments on Eiseman v. Power Toyota Irvine