- The defendant nonconsensually and intentionally confined the plaintiff;
- The defendant did not have a lawful privilege to confine the plaintiff; and
- The plaintiff was confined for an appreciable period of time, however brief.
Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 701, 715 (1994) (observing “[t]hat length of time can be as brief as 15 minutes”).
“Restraint may be effectuated by means of physical force . . ., threat of force or of arrest . . ., confinement by physical barriers . . ., or by means of any other form of unreasonable duress.” Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 701, 715 (1994); see also Scofield v. Critical Air Medical, 45 Cal. App. 4th 990, 1002 (1996) (“it is clear that force or the threat of force are not the only means by which the tort of false imprisonment can be achieved. Fraud or deceit or any unreasonable duress are alternative methods of accomplishing the tort.”).
“The only mental state required to be shown to prove false imprisonment is the intent to confine, or to create a similar intrusion. . . . [and] does not entail an intent or motive to cause harm.” Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 701, 716 (1994).
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court of California: Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal. 4th 350, 372-73 (2004).
California 1st Dist.: Hamburg v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 497, 503-04 (2004); Easton v. Sutter Coast Hosp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 485, 496 (2000).
California 2d Dist.: Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 4th 947, 962 (2012).
California 3d Dist.: Ogulin v. Jeffries, 121 Cal. App. 2d 211, 216-17 (1953); Stallings v. Foster, 119 Cal. App. 2d 614, 619 (1953).
California 4th Dist.: Johnson v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 204 Cal. App. 4th 1097, 1104 (2012).
California 5th Dist: North American Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 137 Cal. App. 4th 627, 640 (2006) (citing to elements as set forth in Judicial Council of Cal. Civ. Jury Instns. (2006) CACI No. 1400).
California 6th Dist.: Snyder v. Evangelical Orthodox Church, 216 Cal. App. 3d 297, 303 (1989).
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011).
Central District: Cook v. Torres, No. CV 13-2030 JLS (SS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158568, at *28 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013).
Eastern District: Schmidt v. United States, No. 2:09-cv-0660 LKK GGH PS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144028, at *22-23 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013).
Northern District: Hesterberg v. United States, No. C-13-01265 JSC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162509, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013).
Southern District: Martin v. Naval Crim. Investigative Serv., (“NCIS”), No. 10CV1879 WQH(MDD), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107666, at *23-24 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2012).