PITMAN v. First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo

Background

Marvin Rodney Pitman sued First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo and Shannon Pappas, identified as the Church’s Pastor and Head of Staff. The amended complaint asserted two claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress against both defendants and aiding and abetting against the Church.

The claims arose from a February 17, 2023 phone call between Pitman and Pappas. Pitman described the call as an angry rant about what he believed was the Church’s complicity in the abuse and decline of his father. He asked for contact information for former pastors, raised his voice, and referred to a devil with a pitchfork, which he said was a joke. Pappas described the call as ominous and borderline threatening. Afterward, Pappas told Church leaders that he was concerned for his safety. At a Church leader’s direction, Pappas reported the call to the San Mateo Police Department three days later.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, but speculation and unsupported conclusions are not enough to require a trial.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Under California law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct, an intent to cause—or reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing—emotional distress, severe emotional distress, and a causal connection between the conduct and the distress.

Pitman argued that Pappas’s police report was outrageous and showed disregard for Pitman. The court found no evidence that the report was offensive, false, or extreme. It held that notifying police after an unsettling phone call—even if the decision was unreasonable—did not exceed the bounds of conduct normally tolerated in society. The court also rejected Pitman’s argument that the Church and Pappas knew he was especially vulnerable, finding that argument conclusory and unsupported by evidence.

The court said that disputes about whether Pitman physically threatened Pappas or whether the report was made to protect the Church’s insurance coverage would not change the result. Even assuming Pitman made no physical threat and Pappas made the report for that purpose, no reasonable jury could find the report extreme and outrageous. The court further stated that the claim would fail on that ground even if the report had caused severe emotional distress.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Aiding and abetting

Pitman alleged that the Church aided and abetted Pappas because Church leaders advised him to make the police report. The court explained that aiding-and-abetting liability requires an underlying intentional tort and assistance or encouragement in committing it, or substantial assistance in achieving a wrongful result combined with the aider’s own breach of duty.

Because the court found no evidence that the police report was wrongful and no underlying tortious activity, it held that the Church could not be liable for aiding and abetting. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim as well.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.