Government Officials – Conflicts and Self Dealing

Useful Rulings on Government Officials – Conflicts and Self Dealing

Rulings on Government Officials – Conflicts and Self Dealing

1-25 of 819 results

QUIROS VS. E.B.M.U.D.

It therefore would be error to sustain [public entity’s] demurrer based on Government Code section 820.2.” (Id.) Odello, by contrast, was a summary judgment case rather than a demurrer, in which the factual basis for a determination of discretion was found to be established by the evidence. EBMUD’s argument that it is categorically immune from a trespass cause of action is not the law. Rather, as outlined above, Government Code § 820.2 might provide immunity.

  • Hearing

FISCHER, MANFRED VS THE SUPERIOR COURTS

Discretionary Immunity Government Code section 820.2 states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Cal. Govt. Code § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FISCHER, MANFRED VS THE SUPERIOR COURTS

Discretionary Immunity Government Code section 820.2 states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Cal. Govt. Code § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FISCHER, MANFRED VS THE SUPERIOR COURTS

Discretionary Immunity Government Code section 820.2 states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Cal. Govt. Code § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

Thus, the contract between plaintiffs and PP&P to provide legal services in connection with the Ortega Reservoir Project and related litigation did not violate Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100. Plaintiffs also allege that the partnership agreement between Wullbrandt and PP&P violated Sections 1090 and 87100 because Wullbrandt received “additional secret and undisclosed profits and compensation in addition to fees paid to him as general counsel.” (SAC, ¶¶ 108.)

  • Hearing

YASMIN M ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Discretionary Immunity Defendant argues that it is entitled to discretionary immunity under Government Code section 820.2, which provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Govt. Code, § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

Defendants argue that the transactions alleged in the TAC do not violate Government Code sections 1090 or 87100 because the transactions are permitted and because PP&P was not a party to many of these contested agreements. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

The Second Amended Complaint references two new causes of action relating to Government Code sections 1090 and 87100 not addressed by the SJM's. The court has been advised that responses related to the pending discovery motions may be required for the propounding parties to respond meaningfully to the SJM's. Further, the new Demurrer and Motion to Strike complicate the handling of the SMJ's.

  • Hearing

JOSE ANGEL LEYBA ET AL VS ANGEL GUILLERMO GRANDES ET AL

Under Government Code Section 820.2, “a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” However,iIn Barner v. Leeds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 676, 678, the court held that “not all acts requiring a public employee to choose among alternatives entail the use of discretion within the meaning of Government Code section 820.2.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PSC 1209000

Motion continued and the parties are ordered to submit supplemental briefs as to (1) whether Government Code section 820.2 bars any claim against Lind based upon her alleged failure to secure the property, and (2) whether Defendants owed a duty to plaintiff. Supplemental briefs are to be filed with court on or before 11/8/17 with a courtesy copied delivered to PS2 by 4:00 p.m. Hearing on MSJ continued to 11/14/17. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

HARBISON VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

With respect to its claims against Galarze, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to overcome the immunity provision set out in Government Code section 820.2. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

GARCIA VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Court finds that the training, staffing, and supervisory decisions here are discretionary acts that fall under Government Code section 820.2 immunities. They are planning and basic policy decisions that are immune from liability as an exercise of discretion. (See Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 981, Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 794.) Demurrer overruled for defendant County of Riverside. Defendant must answer within twenty days.

  • Hearing

FEW VS NORTH RIDGE ELEMANTERY SCHOOL

As to the contention that these claims are barred by Government Code section 820.2 discretionary immunity, there are no allegations in the complaint which demonstrate that any employee any act alleged was the result of an exercise of discretion. Furthermore, the discretionary immunity does not apply to the District’s alleged breach of mandatory duty (Gov. C. §815.6). (Bradford v. State of California (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 16, 19-20.)

  • Hearing

LUKE V. SONOMA COUNTY

Government Code Section 1090 The court finds Petitioner has failed to allege a claim under Section 1090. Section 1090(a) prohibits Respondent county officials from entering a contract in which they are financially interested. However, there are exceptions to the rule, including Government Code section 1091.5, subdivision (a)(3).

  • Hearing

C A VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff's objection also pointed out that defendant did not raise the defense of qualified immunity (Govt. Code § 820.2) until the reply papers. That omission prejudiced plaintiff insofar as counsel was unable to present a counter-argument or provide the Court with legal authority supporting her position. Because the issue of qualified immunity is significant, the hearing on this matter is continued to provide plaintiff time to file a supplemental brief.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ESPINO V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Explanation: Under Government Code section 820.2, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Gov. Code, § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN DOE V.

Government Code Section 820.2 Employees contend that pursuant to Government Code section 820.2, they are immune from liability for the third cause of action. The statute provides immunity for public employees from liability for injuries resulting from an “act or omission…where it was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Gov. Code § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

GEORGE HARRISON V. E. VALENZUELA

Under Government Code §820.2, a public employee is not liable for an injury arising from his or her act that was the result of the discretion vested in them. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to all causes of action.

  • Hearing

DEL VECCHIO V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Court OVERRULES DEFENDANT CRUZ’S demurrers, based on Immunity in Govt Code § 820.2. Defendant has not established the immunity applies including discussion of the principles of discretionary vs. ministerial conduct that govern the immunity. San Mateo Union High School District v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418, 433–34. The Court SUSTAINS DEFENDANT CRUZ’ general demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action for Conversion for failure to plead sufficient facts.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT ET AL VS PRICE POSTEL & PARMA ETC

The two proposed causes of action assert liability for conflicts of interest pursuant to Government Code sections 1090 and 87100. Defendant C.E. Chip Wullbrandt was the general counsel to each of the plaintiffs during the events upon which plaintiffs’ claims are based. (Proposed Second Amended Complaint [“PSAC”], ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

LINNET, DEBRA VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Court overrules the Demurrer to the First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action, finding that Government Code section 820.2 immunity does not apply to these causes of action. The Court sustains the Demurrer as to the Third Cause of Action for Trespass. In regards to the First Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation, courts have narrowly circumscribed the types of emergencies that will shield a public entity from inverse condemnation liability, none of which are relevant here.

  • Hearing

JANE DOE V. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.

Government Immunity Employees first contend that pursuant to Government Code section 820.2, they are immune from liability for the third, fourth and fifth causes of action. The statute provides immunity for public employees from liability for injuries resulting from an “act or omission…where it was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Gov. Code § 820.2.)

  • Hearing

RENATO OBANDO VS LESLIE A SWAIN, ET AL.

Further, Government Code § 820.2 immunity also applies to investigatory acts. (Newton v. Cnty. of Napa (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1561.) Thus, because Government Code § 821.6 is applicable to this matter, so does Government Code § 820.2. (Ingram v. Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1292 [“It follows that if section 821.6 applies, so also does section 820.2.”].) Therefore, Government Code § 820.2 applies and provides further immunity from Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT V. PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA, LLP, ET AL.

Wullbrandt for violation of Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100. All of these claims, except the Government Code claims, are governed by Section 340.6(a) as each claim is based upon the same alleged negligent acts or omissions as alleged in the legal malpractice cause of action. See, Pompilio v.

  • Hearing

D.C ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

While such new evidence is still insufficient for purposes of Govt. Code § 820.2 immunity, the repetition of this motion in this case is not precluded and does not implicate CCP § 128.7. Certain documents have been sealed pursuant to LAUSD’s previous motion and the court’s order of 2/2/18. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed order with a proof of service to seal additional documents which were lodged in connection with these matters. Unless waived, notice of ruling by Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.