Can You Sue Public Employees in California?

Useful Rulings on Public Employee Immunity

Recent Rulings on Public Employee Immunity

KENNETH MOORE VS LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Code §§ 815.2 and 820.2. General Demurrer – Lacks Sufficient Facts Plaintiff’s Complaint on the first page indicates the action is for Negligence. (Complaint, p. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint subsequently asserts a cause of action for Premises Liability. (See id. ¶ 10.) Substantively, Plaintiff alleges having suffered damages as a result of having no mattress to sleep on a hard metal bunk. (Complaint, ¶ 11.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FABRICIO BUSTO ROMERO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

Gov’t Code 820.2. Discretionary acts are those that require personal deliberation, decision and judgment whereas ministerial acts are those that amount only to an obedience to orders or the performance of a duty in which the public employee is left no choice of his/her own. See Morgan (1964) 230 CA2d 938, 942-943; Johnson (1968) 69 C2d 782, 788; Glickman (1964) 230 CA2d 120, 125; Caldwell (1995) 10 C4th 972, 979.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA V. ASCARIE, ET AL.

Code, §§ 821.6, 821.8.) Dr. Ascarie fails to substantively respond to the forgoing arguments in his opposition and therefore impliedly concedes their merits. Consequently, the County’s demurrer to the seventh and eighth causes of action on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. F. Elder Abuse (9th Cause of Action) Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA

Immunities: Kapanicas relies on immunities as provided under Government Code §821.2 and 821.6.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DELL'ANNO VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Code 821.6. "...[A] public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability." Gov. Code 815.2(b). This immunity does not apply. As alleged, the City is not liable because the City Attorney instituted a prosecution without probable cause. Instead, the City is potentially liable for terminating Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for refusing to initiate the subject prosecution.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ASHLEY GONZALEZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action is untenable as a matter of law; (2) Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code sections 845 and 815.2; (3) Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6; (4) There was no dangerous condition of public property; and (5) Plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring, training, and supervision is untenable as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WANDA NELSON V. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ET AL.

Consequently, the analysis of the Section 821.6 immunity finding the individual employees immune from liability, does not eliminate the public entity liability under a mandatory duty analysis.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

EVANINA ALANIZ, ET AL. VS AMG CARE FIGUEROA, LLC, ET AL.

Code § 820.2 provides: “Except 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.” “[I]mmunity applies to ‘basic policy decisions’ but not to ‘ministerial’ decisions that merely implement a basic policy already formulated.” (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALFRED ANYIA, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Government Code sections 845, 821.6, and 815.2(b) City Defendant demurs to the first through fifth and tenth causes of action on the grounds it is immune under Government Code sections 845, 821.6, and 815.2(b). City Defendant first contends that there is no general or mandatory duty to protect Plaintiffs or investigate the alleged incident at their home. The court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. HUBBELL INCORPORATED

Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 986 (with respect to Gov’t Code 820.2 immunizing public employees from liability for discretionary acts), the court stated that where the Government Code provides for a specific immunity, “that immunity cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability on persons, including public employees.” And in Harshbarger v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ERIC JOHN BERNI VS GREG VILLEGAS ET AL

City moves for summary judgment, arguing that it has a complete defense under design immunity under Government Code, § 830.6 on the 1st cause of action in the complaint, regardless of whether or not a dangerous condition exists. Alternatively, City moves for summary adjudication on the 1st cause of action in the complaint on the grounds that no dangerous conditions existed on the property and, even if there was, Plaintiff was not exercising due care.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DELSK GROUP LLC VS DENNIS GUTTIG

Discussion DAPO demurs to the SAC, arguing that (1) Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunities granted by Government Code sections 815, 820.2, and 845.8; (3) Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act pursuant to Government Code § 905.2 and thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action; (4) Plaintiff’s federal claims fail because they are untimely

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS

Discussion DAPO demurs to the SAC, arguing that (1) Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunities granted by Government Code sections 815, 820.2, and 845.8; (3) Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act pursuant to Government Code § 905.2 and thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action; (4) Plaintiff’s federal claims fail because they are untimely

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS

Discussion DAPO demurs to the SAC, arguing that (1) Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunities granted by Government Code sections 815, 820.2, and 845.8; (3) Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act pursuant to Government Code § 905.2 and thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action; (4) Plaintiff’s federal claims fail because they are untimely

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MYRALYN OA NARTEY VS BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

It follows that there must be a specific statute imposing liability on Defendant for retaliation by representatives in the doctoral program; instead, Government Code section 820.2 states “[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.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ALLEN V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The FAC lists a claim for breach of Government Code section 820.2. Plaintiff alleges that that the implementation of AD 446 involved a non-discretionary ministerial function. The documents attached to the pleading show such assertion is incorrect. Assessments and plans to reach health goals are inherently discretionary. (See Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. LAUSD (2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 175, 180.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BHANDARI VS. CONTRA COSTA

Section 820.2 then goes on to state that a public entity is immune from liability for injuries caused by discretionary acts. Thus, defendants are alleging that if the actions of their employees caused plaintiff’s injuries, discretionary immunity applies to those actions. Defendants have alleged this defense in the standard manner and have explained the basis for it.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FLEEMAN V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

“Except as otherwise provided by statute (including Section 820.2), a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” (Government Code, § 820.) “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

TOWNER VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

The court sustains without leave to amend the individual governmental employee Defendants' argument that they have absolute immunity as to the fourth cause of action (negligence) pursuant to Government Code sections 820.2 and 820.6. (Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972.) The issue is mooted as to causes of action three and five by this courts contemporaneous ruling on Defendants' SLAPP motion. The court sustains, without leave to amend, Defendant Zappia's demurrer to cause of action four.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RONALD L. PONCIANO VS CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, AN ENTITY UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Furthermore, while Plaintiff has cited to Government Code section 815.2(a) as an exception to government immunity under section 820.2, none of the facts alleged tie section 815.2 to the allegations in the complaint. A liberal reading of the second amended complaint indicates these causes of action are based upon the theory that Defendant Citrus College is liable for the acts of its staff, namely Defendants Perri and Sammis, who were acting in the scope of their employment under section 815.2. (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RONALD L. PONCIANO VS CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, AN ENTITY UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Furthermore, while Plaintiff has cited to Government Code section 815.2(a) as an exception to government immunity under section 820.2, none of the facts alleged tie section 815.2 to the allegations in the complaint. A liberal reading of the second amended complaint indicates these causes of action are based upon the theory that Defendant Citrus College is liable for the acts of its staff, namely Defendants Perri and Sammis, who were acting in the scope of their employment under section 815.2. (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANDREW BURKOT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Code, §830.6.) · (6) Summary judgment on the entire action is appropriate because the allegations of the Complaint vary impermissibly from the theories asserted in the Government Claim presented to County pursuant to Government Code §910, et seq. · (7) County is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because crosswalk where Plaintiff’s accident occurred, if defective, was minor, trivial or insubstantial under Government Code, §830.2.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSE JESUS BARRETO ET AL VS CITY OF PASADENA ET AL

Code §§ 830.6; (5) Pasadena is immune from liability for the acts of third parties under Gov. Code § 820.8; (6) Pasadena is immune from liability for discretionary acts under Gov. Code §§ 820.2; (7) Pasadena had no actual notice of a dangerous condition at the intersection at issue; and (8) Pasadena had no constructive notice of a dangerous condition at the intersection at issue.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RITA DAVIDSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

In its answer to the second amended complaint, Defendant asserts a design immunity defense pursuant to Government Code section 830.6. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on that defense. As an initial matter, the Court notes that although this is Defendant’s second motion for summary judgment, this motion is not precluded because it seeks summary judgment on a different ground than the previous motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.