Overview

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a cause of action under any contract theory. It was plaintiffs’ veterinarian, not plaintiffs, who contracted with defendant. The complaint did not allege plaintiffs were aware of any conduct by defendant which implied an offer to perform a private cremation of their dogs; [2]-However, plaintiffs adequately pleaded a trespass to chattel claim. Their allegation of intentional misconduct was corroborated by the allegation that defendant twice, over the course of more than a year, failed to return their dogs’ cremains. Once could be a mixup; twice suggested intentionality; [3]-Plaintiffs’ allegations also supported a negligence cause of action because defendant advertised its services as providing emotional solace, and thus it was foreseeable that a failure to use reasonable care with the ashes would result in emotional distressCalifornia Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains Labor Code 970

“q

Outcome

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Samantha Potts

Author: Samantha Potts