In Doe v. Jones, decided yesterday by Judge Thomas Durkin (N.D. Ill.), Doe sued her ex-boyfriend Jones for surreptitiously videorecording their sexual acts, and some friends of Jones' for soliciting and further distributing the videos. The court allowed those claims to go forward, but it rejected Doe's further claims against Jones's parents as owners of the home where some of the behavior took place.
Here's the court's analysis as to intentional infliction of emotional distress claim:
Doe does not allege that the Homeowners engaged in any conduct that could feasibly be considered extreme and outrageous. In fact, the only specific conduct she alleges from either parent is that Jennifer contacted Doe to express her "devastation" for Doe and her "disappointment in [her son]'s actions." That is not a tort.
Doe's conclusory allegation that the Homeowners "knew or should have known" that their son was engaged in tortious conduct on his private cell phone lacks any plausible factual support. Doe argues that Jones Sr.'s role as a police officer means he would have extensive knowledge of criminal sexual assault and nonconsensual recording and disseminating videos. While that may be true, that alone certainly does not indicate he is automatically privy to the alleged illegal conduct of a third party. Doe has failed to plausible allege a claim of IIED against Jones Sr. and Jennifer. In fact, it is not even close.
