On Aug. 18, 2011, plaintiff Monisha Browning, 27, placed an online order for the delivery of two pizzas from a local Pizza Hut franchisee, Southern California Pizza Co. LLC, and secured the order with a credit card number. The Pizza Hut delivery driver, Michael LeBlanc, later arrived at Browning’s residence, where he walked to the front door and was greeted Mrs. Browning’s husband, plaintiff Rodney Browning, 30. In accordance with Southern California Pizza’s written policy, LeBlanc asked Mr. Browning for photo identification and the credit card provided in the online order so that he could verify that the last four digits on the credit card matched the receipt and that the name on the credit card matched the photo identification, as well as so LeBlanc could make an imprint of the card and have the customer sign the receipt. However, an altercation ensued. Mrs. Browning later called police and reported the incident. Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to both the Pizza Hut store and to the Brownings’ home. The deputies questioned LeBlanc at the Pizza Hut store and questioned Mr. Browning at his home. The deputies also performed a walk-through of the Brownings’ house for their protection and since they did not conduct an invasive search, the deputies did not see any hidden persons or weapons in plain sight. Ultimately, the deputies concluded that the conflicting stories between the Brownings and LeBlanc made it impossible to ascertain the truth of the matter, and no charges were filed. Southern California Pizza also conducted its own detailed investigation into the incident and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the Brownings’ allegations, in that it found no evidence of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior on behalf of LeBlanc. As a result, no disciplinary action was taken against LeBlanc. Mr. Browning, individually, and Mrs. Browning, individually and as guardian ad litem for their five minor children, sued the corporate entities of Southern California Pizza Co. LLC, Pizza Hut of America Inc., Pizza Hut Inc. and Yum! Brands. They later added LeBlanc and Southern California Pizza Co. LLC as defendants. The Brownings alleged physical and emotional arising from a confrontation between them and LeBlanc, as well as from the sheriff’s subsequent investigation of the incident. Thus, they alleged that LeBlanc’s actions constituted trespass, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Brownings also alleged that Southern California Pizza was vicariously liable for LeBlanc’s actions and was negligent in the hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention of LeBlanc. In addition, the Brownings sought punitive damages against LeBlanc and Southern California Pizza. The Brownings’ minor children were ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. Defense counsel also moved summary adjudication, and it was granted as to the causes of action for negligent hiring of an employee, negligent training and/or supervision of an employee, negligent retention of an employee, and general negligence on the grounds that there was no factual evidence to support those causes of action. The court agreed with the defendants that LeBlanc’s communications to the police were protected from tort liability by an absolute privilege under California Civil Code § 47(b). The court also granted Southern California Pizza’s summary adjudication on the issue of punitive damages due to the evidence being insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the imposition of such damages against that defendant. In addition, defense counsel was granted a motion for nonsuit on the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages against LeBlanc. The trial then proceeded on the Mr. and Mrs. Browning’s causes of action for trespass, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Southern California Pizza and LeBlanc. Mr. Browning claimed that LeBlanc entered their house and physically accosted him during the course of the pizza delivery. Mrs. Browning claimed she witnessed the incident, while their five minor children were upstairs and did not witness or perceive any of the interactions between Mr. Browning and LeBlanc. LeBlanc claimed that Mr. Browning initially refused to present photo identification and the credit card provided in the online order, and, instead, asked him to “leave the pizzas” because he “already paid for it.” LeBlanc claimed that Mr. Browning eventually produced a credit card, but when the last four digits did not match the card provided in the online order, Mr. Browning grabbed him by the shirt. He further claimed that Mrs. Browning then ran up, yelling and cursing at him, and knocked the pizzas from his hands. In addition, LeBlanc claimed that Mr. Browning stated he was going to “get his gat” and left his line of sight and that when he returned, Mr. Browning kept one hand in his shorts, giving the impression that he was concealing a gun. LeBlanc alleged that he then left the property, since he was afraid for his safety, and returned to the Pizza Hut store., Mr. Browning alleged lower back and neck pain, as well as emotional distress, as a result of the incident. At the time of the altercation, Mr. Browning had been receiving government disability payments for the past six years arising from a gunshot injury he sustained during a liquor store robbery. Mrs. Browning alleged emotional distress as a result of the incident. The Brownings also initially sought emotional distress damages for their five children (Marlaysha, 10; Kala, 10; Rodnay, 7; Monay, 4; and Rodney III, 1). However, the minor plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. Defense counsel argued that Mr. Browning’s alleged physical ailments and emotional symptoms, if any, related to the prior gunshot injury, and were not from the alleged confrontation with LeBlanc. Defense counsel also argued that Mrs. Browning’s alleged emotional distress did not satisfy the “severe or serious emotional distress” standard as required in claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Rather, counsel contended that based on Mrs. Browning’s medical records, any alleged emotional distress was solely attributed to harassment at work, financial difficulties, health issues, and the difficulties in parenting five children.