Can You Sue Public Employees in California?

Useful Rulings on Public Employee Immunity

Recent Rulings on Public Employee Immunity

GOLDEN ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, ET AL.

Defendant also argues the trespass claim is also barred by Government Code § 820.2, which provides: “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.” Defendant contends the alleged trespassory conduct by the inspectors falls under section 820.2 because investigative conduct is discretionary and thus covered by section 820.2.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Additionally, Moving Defendants contend that the second cause of action fails where there is immunity in a school official’s favor under Government Code section 820.2. (Demurrer, 7-8.) In opposition, Jane JB Doe contends that the second cause of action is sufficiently pled and legally permissible. (Opposition, 15.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MOORE V. GATES

Code, § 820.2 which 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.” The Court disagrees. The alleged age discrimination – demotions in order to push older attorneys out – is not a discretionary policy decision for which Gates is afforded governmental immunity. This is supported by Taylor v.

  • Hearing

JANE JG DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Additionally, Moving Defendants contend that the second cause of action fails where there is immunity in a school official’s favor under Government Code section 820.2. (Demurrer, 7-8.) In opposition, Jane GJ Doe contends that the second cause of action is sufficiently pled and legally permissible. (Opposition, 15.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVAN BRAFF VS EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment Parties’ Positions At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that the premises liability claim fails because the tricycle path, which did not violate any safety standards was not a dangerous condition, and Defendant is also immune from liability under Government Code §§ 831.4 and 830.6.

  • Hearing

SANCHEZ; NEFF VS BRENTWOOD

Gov 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.”

  • Hearing

SHARI BASH VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

DISCUSSION Design Immunity Defendants argue that the claim fails because they are immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6.

  • Hearing

JENELL CONTRERAS, ET AL. VS JON PEARSON, ET AL.

The traditional immunity for discretionary acts is addressed in Section 820.2, which is quoted above. The Senate Legislative Committee comment appended to Section 820.2 declares that the statute restates the pre-existing California law and that the discretionary immunity rule is restated in statutory form to ensure that, unless otherwise provided by statute, public employees will continue to remain immune from liability for their discretionary acts within the scope of their employment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show a probability of success because of governmental immunity under Government Code §§ 821.6, 818.8, and 822.2. “[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’t Code § 815.2.)

  • Hearing

ANDREW MANNING VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA, ET AL.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot prevail because Defendants are immune under Government Code section 821.6. “A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.” (Gov. Code, § 821.6.) This immunity is broadly construed and extends to actions taken in preparation for formal proceedings, including an investigation. (Gillan v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

J. H., A MINOR, CHILDREN OF DECEDENT, SHIN WU, THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JORGE HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DISCUSSION County demurs to the causes of action in the FAC, arguing that the FAC is barred by Government Code, §§ 815, 815.2, 820.2, 818.2, 821, 856, and 821.6. A.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot prevail because Defendants are immune under Government Code section 821.6. “A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.” (Gov. Code, § 821.6.) This immunity is broadly construed and extends to actions taken in preparation for formal proceedings, including an investigation. (Gillan v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

DISCUSSION Government Code sections 845, 821.6, and 815.2(b) City Defendant demurs to the first through fifth and tenth through twelfth causes of action on the grounds it is immune under Government Code sections 845, 821.6, and 815.2(b). California Government Code section 815 provides that “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person” except as provided by statute. (Govt.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

See Gov’t Code 820.2; Doe (2002) 102 CA4th 899, 911-913; Johnson (1968) 69 C2d 782, 784-785, 795-798; Barner (2000) 24 C4th 676, 679-680, 688-689; Rosen (2018) 29 CA5th 890, 915-916.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASHRAH FELIX, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Second, LAUSD argues that it is immunized from liability under Government Code section 820.2 which protects school employees from tort liability for the exercise of discretion in the performance of their duties. Finally, LAUSD argues that no statutory exemption to immunity applies because LAUSD has not breached any mandatory statutory duty. Liability against a public entity in California is wholly statutory. (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ISSA AL-BAYATI VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Second, LAUSD argues that it is immunized from liability under Government Code section 820.2 which protects school employees from tort liability for the exercise of discretion in the performance of their duties. Finally, LAUSD argues that no statutory exemption to immunity applies because LAUSD has not breached any mandatory statutory duty. Liability against a public entity in California is wholly statutory. (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, the court found that the immunity provided to public employees under Section 821.6 precluded a claim under the Bane Act for alleged wrongful seizure and retention of property. Indeed, Government Code section 821.6 provides a specific immunity, applicable under specific circumstances. Further, it contains no exceptions, and is absolute.

  • Hearing

GABRIEL J. BRADWAY (V35309) VS DR. YASHODARA RAO

Government Code section 820.2 states: "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.Gov. Code § 820.2.) The exhibits to the FAC demonstrate that a decision to recommend single-cell status is based on consideration and evaluation of multiple factors. (FAC, Ex. A at pp. 13, 24, Ex. B at pg. 45, Ex. C at pg. 19.)

  • Hearing

CHAD JENSEN, ET AL. VS CITY OF POMONA, ET AL.

Defendant Olivieri also contends that the action is barred by worker’s compensation exclusivity.[2] Defendant Cooper contends that he is statutorily immune from the damages alleged under Government Code § 821.6, that Plaintiffs fail to allege emotional distress, and that Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendant Cooper is the proximate cause of any emotional distress.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VALLEY HONEY, INC. ET AL. VS EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

The Court analyzed government immunity under section 820.2, and followed the legal standard noted above that discretion is vested for policy decisions, but not for operational decision-making. (Id. at 750.) The court held that the decision to issue flood forecasts was a policy-making decision involving discretion under section 820.2, but that “gathering, evaluating, and disseminating flood forecast information are administrative or ministerial activities outside the scope of governmental immunity.”

  • Hearing

BETTY LONG V. CITY OF EXETER

After the teen assaulted the plaintiff, she sued the state, which obtained summary judgment pursuant to section 820.2. The Supreme Court reversed. The court found that the state had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the teen’s “latent, dangerous qualities,” and that the failure to warn was not a discretionary function within the meaning of section 820.2. (Id. at p. 786-787.)

  • Hearing

CHUONG THAI VS CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

With respect to the second cause of action for defamation, Defendant moves for summary adjudication on the following issues: (1) Defendant is entitled to governmental immunity; (2) California Civil Code, Section 47 and California Government Code, Section 820.2 provide immunity for Defendant, its City Council members, and its employees; (3) Plaintiff cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged defamatory statements were made with actual malice; and (4) Plaintiff cannot establish that the

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PORTER VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Immunity The City argues it is immune from liability based on Government Code sections 821.6, 845 and 846. Government Code section 821.6 states that “[a] public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the was intended to protect public employees from liability only for malicious prosecution. (Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 12 Cal.3d 710, 719-720.)

  • Hearing

MILAN VS. CITY OF YORBA LINDA

The City also contends that Plaintiff’s IIED and NIED claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory immunity defenses under Government Code §§ 815.2 and 820.2. Cal. Gov. Code § 820.2 provides that, “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.” Cal. Gov.

  • Hearing

ALISON SMITH VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

In opposition, City argues that the proposed 4th cause of action fails to meet the pleading requirements for a statutory claim, City is immune under Government Code §§821.6 and 815.2, and the 4th cause of action is a SLAPP. However, at this time, the Court declines to address the substantive merits of the 4th cause of action. Rather, City’s arguments are better addressed by way of a demurrer or other dispositive motion. Based on the declaration of Mr.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.