Kight

INTRODUCTION

In 2006, several borrowers sued their lender, CashCall, Inc., alleging CashCall

monitored their telephone conversations without their knowledge or consent. Over

CashCall's objections, the trial court certified a class on one of the claims, an alleged

violation of section 632, which imposes liability on a "person" who intentionally

"eavesdrops upon or records [a] confidential communication" and engages in this conduct

"without the consent of all parties." (Italics added.)

After class certification, CashCall successfully moved for summary adjudication

on the section 632 claim. The trial court found as a matter of law a corporation does not

violate the statute when one of its supervisory employees secretly monitors a

conversation between a customer and another corporate employee, reasoning that two

employees are a single "person" within the meaning of the statute.

We reversed this order in a published decision. (Kight v. CashCall, Inc. (2011)

200 Cal.App.4th 1377 (CashCall II).) We held the statute applies even if the

unannounced listener is employed by the same corporate entity as the known recipient of

the conversation, concluding the trial…