Legal Memorandum: Prema vs Darma, Case Study Example

Legal Memorandum

Re: An analytical perspective on the impending case of Prema v. Darma in the California State Court, based on whether the charge of intentional emotional infliction of emotional distress is applicable

Statement of Fact

The facts of the case are as follows:

• The defendant Darma, who was previously married in the year 2001, responded to an advertisement by the parents of the plaintiff (Prema); who were seeking a husband for their daughter. The defendant led them to believe he was single.
• The defendant willingly and knowingly consummated the marriage to plaintiff after a period of courtship.
• The act by the defendant is classified as Bigamy under the 2010 California Penal Code (Section 281-289.6, and is punishable by fine not exceeding $10,000 or 1 year in a State or Federal prison.
• The Plaintiff remained in Sri Lanka for 2 ½ years while the defendant went back to Chico California, with substantial amount of money received from the parents of the bride, to provide support and to start a business.
• The Plaintiff went to work in the Turks and Caicos Islands and then visited the address of the defendant, where found out he was already married from 2001.
• Upon discovery of the defendant being already married, the plaintiff subsequently broke off the relationship, and went back to work in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where she began to suffer migraine headaches for the first time.
• The Plaintiff learnt that her parents had begun the same process for finding another husband for her, and became mortified at the thought of going through the same ordeal again.
• Plaintiff began to lose sleep and suffer ongoing anxieties.
• It was discovered that the defendant had been fabricating e-mails to make it appear that he was still communicating with the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff re-married and began receiving harassing and threatening calls at home and at work.
• A restraining order was taken out against the defendant but was violated when he contacted the Los Angeles Country Sheriff office.
• The Defendant was later charged for filing a false complaint
• Under advice of her medical doctor after constantly suffering sleep loss and other emotional problems, the plaintiff took a six month leave of absence from her job to recover.

The Issue

The issue of concern in this case is whether the tort intentional infliction of emotional distress, which according to Givelber (1982), provides recovery to victims of socially reprehensible conduct, is presently applicable under the California Judicial System, due to its past standalone treatment and the fact that a number of previous cases were determined only on case by case basis.

Answer

Based on the facts of the case that has come to light, the plaintiff definitely has a valid case against the defendant, providing it can be shown that (a) the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress, (b) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous, (3) his actions were the main cause for the distress felt by the petitioner, and it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the emotional distress experience was severe (Dobbs, 2000).

These conditions as we all know has become the accepted standard of law since the case Kroger Co. v. Willgruber, 920 S.W. 2d 61, 64 (KY, 1966), according to Cavico (2003).

Discussion

Can the plaintiff and her prosecuting team prove beyond reasonable doubt that; (a) the defendant had intended to inflict emotional damage, (b) show that that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous, (c) that he intentionally meant to cause her distress, and (d) that the distress was severe, according to Cavico (2003)? The discussion will prove whether this is possible or not.

Cavico (2003) argued that the key demand in the tort of intentional emotional distress is the presence of extreme and outrageous conduct, but this may be countered by the defense team, who may cite that historically the definition of conduct in this manner has always lack clarity and this case is no different.

This defense may go further to ask the judge to dismiss the case if the prosecution cannot bring the necessary evidence to show that the act of his client was extreme and outrageous, but the prosecution would strongly insist that it is in possession of evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in the manner defined under the law.

In prosecuting the case, the prosecuting team would place itself in an advantageous position at the outset, by pointing out that bigamy in California and Sri Lanka was considered an extreme and outrageous act, because it goes beyond possible bounds of decency, and is utterly intolerable in any civilized community.

Bigamy in California, under section 281-289.6 of the 2010 California Penal Code, is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10, 000 or imprisonment in a State or Federal prison for a period of time not more than one year, according to Justia US Law .Com (2010), and the crime occurs when every person having a husband or wife living and marries another person, except in a case where one of the marriage partner is absent for 5 successive years without his or her partner being aware of his or her whereabouts, or if a competent court had pronounced the previous marriage null and void.

The defendant did not meet these exceptions as outlined in section 282, and as such knowingly and willingly married the plaintiff, while having his wife in Chico California. He never intended to bring her to America, but was simply using the unsuspecting plaintiff and her family as a means to extort money and in the process inflict emotional damage.

The defendant by most societal standards had committed the crime of bigamy, which in the eyes of the court and the very nature of the attendant fines, should be classified as an outrageous and excessive conduct.

In elaborating further, the prosecution could cite the case of Rekosh v. Park 316 Ill App 3d 58 (2000), where the Supreme Court Judges highlighted the fact that in determining whether the conduct is extreme and outrageous, the relationship between the parties has to be taken into consideration, especially when one party has real or apparent power or authority over the other party (Illinois State us, 2000).

In this case there was no doubt that the defendant had real power and authority over the client, who in subjection to him stayed in Sri Lanka for 2 ½ years, waiting for him to successfully process her immigration papers.

It was also the cultural norm for Sri Lankan women to obey their husbands, and as such the conduct of the defendant must be deemed extreme and outrageous, as he deliberately exploited the belief systems of the plaintiff to his advantage for nearly three years.

The third challenge the prosecution has to successfully address before the Courts will be to prove that the actions of the defendant were the cause for the distress that the plaintiff had experience, according to Dobbs (2000).

A strong argument that the defense could make may come from the case Leavitt v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 238 F Supp 2d 313, 317 (De , 2003), where it was argued that although the defendant actions may be intentionally inflicted, not all emotional agitation can be redressed as Tortuous Emotional Distress. The defense would be implying that there could be other reasons for the emotional distress the plaintiff was experiencing and in the light of a lack of medical evidence to substantiate this argument, the prosecution case lacks credibility.

The defense team could go further and cite the Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 cm. J (1965), which according to Cavico (2003), state that some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is the price for living among people.

A case however, can be made by the prosecuting team and supported by medical evidence, which they could describe as Exhibit A; that prior to learning that the defendant had already married, the plaintiff had no prior history of migraine headaches, not even while working in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Additionally, the team could argue that the plaintiff distress exacerbated when she heard that her parents had begun the same process whereby she had gotten married to the defendant to find another husband, and the thought of going through a similar experience, increased the frequency of her migraine headaches.

The defense could attack the prosecution argument by accusing the plaintiff of being homesick and missing her parent while in the Turks and Caicos, and this had nothing to do with the defendant causing her distress. However, this would only lay the foundation for the prosecution to cite the case of Kroger Co. v. Willgruber 920 S.W. 2d 61, 64 (KY, 1966), where the plaintiff by legal precedent, has to be give the opportunity to prove that the distress experience was severe.

Reference could be made using the facts of the case, to show that the defendant upon hearing of the plaintiff having gotten married, began making calls to her home and place of business, deliberately to harass as well as humiliate her before her husband, and this conduct over a period of time, until the issuing of a restraining order against the defendant, definitely caused her distress to become severe.

The judge and jurors in the case may be further influence by the prosecuting team, if it then  argue that the defendant, in his drive to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress, violated the restraining order and was later charged by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Office for filing false complaint.

Prema prosecuting team would be well advised at this stage to cite the Restatement (Second) of Tort §46 (1965), to influence how the defendant behavior should be categorized and his qualification for a fine, as the tort states that anyone, who by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly caused emotional distress to another individual, he or she should be subject to liability (Fisk, 2001).

The harm caused by the defendant to the plaintiff overtime, caused her to suffer migraine headaches, lose sleep, suffer ongoing anxieties, as well as constant humiliations in the presence of her new husband, should then be stated by the prosecuting team and supported by medical reports from the plaintiff medical doctors, which should be tendered into evidence as Exhibit B.

The prosecuting team following this strategy, should then emphasize that it was providing further proof to the jurors and the presiding judge, as required by the Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 (1965), which state that in order to prove an act was outrageous and the plaintiff suffer severe distress, he or she must show that he or she has experience emotional distress, and by the plaintiff testifying to this effect as well as the medical evidence provided, the conclusion should be beyond reasonable doubt.

In closing his submission, and with the defense most likely accepting defeat, the prosecution should then tender Exhibit C, which is a copy of the six month leave of absence from the client employer in the Turks and Caicos Island, and then argue that, due to the severity of the distress felt, as a result of the conduct of the defendant, his client had to take a six month leave of absence from her job to recover.

Conclusion

Evidence has been presented by the prosecuting team, using the facts related to the case, precedents from other related cases within the last fifty years, as well as three vital exhibits, to confirm and hopefully convince the judge and jurors that Prema, the plaintiff in this case, has indeed suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The case was been argued successfully we believe, despite strong initial arguments by the defense using the homesickness strategy, as well as the Leavitt v. Wal-Mart (De, 2003) case, but by using the four components required under the statutory law in California, namely, the defendant intended to inflict emotional damage, his actions were extreme and outrageous, these actions caused the distress and the distress was severe, and by providing substantial evidence for each, the prosecution has made it case beyond reasonable doubt.

Works Cited

Cavico, Frank J. (2003). “The Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the Private Employment Sector” Hofstra University Retrieved from: <http://lawarchive.hofstra.edu/pdf/labor_vol21no1_cavico.pdf > on 07/11/12

Dobbs, Dan B. “The Law of Torts §303 at 824” (2000)

Fisk, Catherine L.” Humiliation at Work:” William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law Vol.8 Issue No, 1 Article 3 p. 90 Retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=wmjowl

Givelber, Daniel. “The Right to Minimum Social Decency and the Limits of Evenhandedness: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Outrageous Conduct“. Columbia Law Review Vol.82 Issue No. 1 pp.42-75 (1982) Columbia Review Association Retrieved from: <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1122238?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100912615041> on 07/11/12

Illinois State US Court (2000). “Case David and Ronald Rekosh v June Parks 1 September 2000 No. 299-0928 in the Appellate Court of Illinois” Retrieved from <http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/2000/2nddistrict/september/html/2990928.htm> on 07/12/12

Justia US Law.Com (2010). “2010 California Code Penal Code Chapter 5 Bigamy, Incest, And The Crime Against Nature” Retrieved from: http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/pen/281-289.6.html on 07/12/12

Notes

1. The Cavico (2003), Dobbs (2005) and Fisk (2001) citations were used in the analysis, because they dealt specifically and respectively with the core argument of the case, defined the tort accurately and focus specifically on the humiliations women face in life, especially on the job.
2. The Givelber (1982) citation was from the reputable Columbia law Review Journal, and provided details and case study example of how intentional infliction of emotional distress connects with severe and outrageous conduct.
3. Justia US Law.com and Illinois State citations provided actual California Law related cases that could be used as precedents by the defense and the prosecuting teams.