Martinelli v. International House USA
Filed April 11, 2008,
Second District, Div. One
Cite as 2008 SOS 2175

Decision on Demurrer Affirmed

Marie Martinelli  (Martinelli) is a lawyer licensed to practice in California. Luisa Fossati (Fossati) is an Italian national and Martinelli’s niece who came to the United States on a student visa. Martinelli enrolled Fossati in an English language program at International House (IH).

Fossati’s student visa prohibited her from working in the United States except under limited circumstances.

IH sent a report to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stating that it had terminated Fossati as a student because she accepted employment in violation of the terms of her visa.

As Fossati is living with Martinelli, the IH reported the latter to the California State Bar “for asking International House to ignore Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regulations.”

Martinelli wrote to IH regarding Fossati’s school and immigration status. IH, in its response in a fax, accused Martinelli of asking the former “not to report her niece to INS, knowing that she was breaking the latter’s regulations.”

Said fax was sent to Martinelli’s law office with the office’s letterhead. Monique Palmieri, who worked for the office, picked up this letter from the office fax machine and read it.

Martinelli brought this action against IH and its executive director alleging causes of action for libel, slander, infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers to the causes of action for infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy without leave to amend based on the “single publication rule”. The court also granted defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on Martinelli’s defamation claims.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the district court by holding that:

• The faxed copy of report sent by IH to office fax number set forth in Attorney’s letterhead that was read by a third party fax did not constitute a publication. This is because Martinelli, in inviting correspondence to its insurance agency’s fax number, undertook burden to protect her own confidentiality.


• It was Fossati, who gave said fax number as a means of communicating with Martinelli on issues pertaining to her studies and immigration status. Fossati also informed IH that it was Martinelli’s daughter who is responsible for daily activities in Martinelli’s office and worked closely with the latter.


• IH knew from previous contacts that Martinelli was deeply interested in such matter. IH had reasonable belief that Martinelli expected fax number to be used for communications regarding niece. Its initial fax of report to insurance agency -which was addressed to attorney’s daughter and read by her, and sent on day school knew Martinelli would not be in office - was not a publication.