Orcutt v. Vice CA2/6

Filed 3/24/25 Orcutt v. Vice CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RICHARD V. ORCUTT, 2d Civ. No. B335120 (Super. Ct. No. 21CV-0030) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

NATHANIEL VICE,

Defendant and Respondent.

Richard Orcutt sued Nathaniel Vice for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging he was responsible for sending threatening cards to implicate Orcutt in a crime. Orcutt appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against him. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Anonymous cards were mailed to four real estate agents, complaining about racial minorities living on Cavalier Lane in San Luis Obispo. The return address was given as “Cavalier Neighbors.” The cards warned the agents against renting homes to racial minorities, and threatened to shoot the renters or the

agents if that occurred. Orcutt was arrested and prosecuted for sending the cards but the charges were ultimately dismissed. Vice and four other college student roommates lived in a house on Cavalier near Orcutt. Several months before the cards were sent to the real estate agents, Orcutt sent anonymous letters to the roommates’ landlord to complain about a dog owned by one of the roommates, Alex S. The letters claimed to be sent by the “Cavalier Lane Homeowners Association,” which does not actually exist. As a result, the dog was removed from the residence. Vice and Alex S. went to Orcutt’s house to talk about the dog. In a declaration filed with the trial court, Vice stated that was the only time he interacted with Orcutt. In his deposition, Vice was asked if he wanted to keep the dog. He responded, “Alex wanted to keep the dog.” Vice was asked if he also wanted the dog to stay and responded, “It would have been nice to have kept the dog there.” Vice said his goal in going to Orcutt’s home was to “eliminate the confusion” with Orcutt about the dog and avoid any neighbors being upset. In his declaration filed with the trial court, Orcutt stated that on another occasion he spoke to an unidentified tenant of Vice’s residence about current and former residents of Cavalier Lane, and that some of that information, which Orcutt does not describe, appeared in the four cards sent to the real estate agents. Orcutt sued Vice for intentional infliction of emotional distress, making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)), and preparing false evidence (Pen. Code, § 134). The complaint alleged that Vice was “a person legally responsible for the issuance of the four correspondences,” and the letters were