Thompkins v. Sovinsky CA2/2

Filed 12/22/20 Thompkins v. Sovinsky CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ERIN THOMPKINS, B301514

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC682539) v.

CECILIA MORAN SOVINSKY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed.

Cecilia Moran Sovinsky, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Kerendian & Associates, Inc., Shab David Kerendian and Edrin Shamtob for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Defendant and appellant Cecilia Moran Sovinsky appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Erin Thompkins entered after a bench trial. Defendant contends that the judgment was “prejudiced, discriminative, unfair, unmerited, unjustifiable, unreasonable, bigoted and unscrupulous.” The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, and defendant offers no cogent basis to reverse the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Factual Background On or about April 1, 2017, plaintiff, a traveling nurse, and defendant entered into a lease agreement, whereby plaintiff leased a room in defendant’s house on a month-to-month basis. On May 16, 2017, defendant informed plaintiff that she would be installing security cameras in various areas of the house. Cameras were then installed in the house’s kitchen, foyer, living room, second story, and outside areas. But, according to plaintiff, defendant never told her that the cameras “had audio” and that she would be able to listen to plaintiff’s conversations in the house. In August 2017, defendant told plaintiff that she had listened to recorded conversations that plaintiff had had with other tenants in defendant’s house. Plaintiff intended for those conversations to be private. During the time she lived in defendant’s house, plaintiff also had had roughly 20 to 30 private conversations with third parties regarding events that would be regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Had she known that the security cameras had the capability of recording those confidential communications, she