Ortberg v. Goldman Sachs Group

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction restricting protests outside Goldman Sachs’s office and the home of a Goldman Sachs employee. The court held that the record did not establish a substantial likelihood of success on the employee’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim or the plaintiffs’ private-nuisance claim. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. On this record, Paese did not clearly demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success because the protestors' conduct was not extreme and outrageous and the evidence did not establish severe emotional distress.
2. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the private-nuisance claims because the protests did not result in substantial injury or continuous or constantly recurring acts constituting an unreasonable interference with use of the property. The court did not definitively resolve whether private nuisance is an independent tort in the District of Columbia.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding a substantial likelihood that Michael Paese would prevail on his intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding a substantial likelihood that Goldman Sachs and Michael Paese would prevail on their private-nuisance claims.
3. Whether the preliminary injunction should be reversed without reaching the injunction's scope or potential conflict with the appellants' First Amendment rights.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded