Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Government Code ยง 820.2 provides:
โExcept 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.โ
Government Code ยง 821.6 provides:
โA 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.โ
ยง 820.2 provides immunity only for the acts or omissions that are โthe result of the exercise of the discretionโ vested in a public employee. .... โ[T]o be entitled to immunity the state must make a showing that such a policy decision, consciously balancing risks and advantages, took place. The fact that an employee normally engages in 'discretionary activity' is irrelevant if, in a given case, the employee did not render a considered decisionโ (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 794 citing Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782)
Govt. Code ยง 830.6. โNeither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to, public property where such plan or design has been approved in advance of the construction or improvement by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved, if the trial or appellate court determines that there is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which:
Notwithstanding notice that constructed or improved public property may no longer be in conformity with a plan or design or a standard which reasonably could be approved by the legislative body or other body or employee, the immunity provided by this section shall continue for a reasonable period of time sufficient to permit the public entity to obtain funds for and carry out remedial work necessary to allow such public property to be in conformity with a plan or design approved by the legislative body of the public entity or other body or employee, or with a plan or design in conformity with a standard previously approved by such legislative body or other body or employee. In the event that the public entity is unable to remedy such public property because of practical impossibility or lack of sufficient funds, the immunity provided by this section shall remain so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of the condition not conforming to the approved plan or design or to the approved standard. However, where a person fails to heed such warning or occupies public property despite such warning, such failure or occupation shall not in itself constitute an assumption of the risk of the danger indicated by the warning.โ Govt. Code ยง 830.6.
โThe rationale behind design immunity 'is to prevent a jury from simply reweighing the same factors considered by the governmental entity which approved the design.โโ (Grenier v. City of Irwindale (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 931, 939.) โ[T]o permit reexamination in tort litigation of particular discretionary decisions where reasonable men may differ as to how the discretion should be exercised would create too great a danger of impolitic interference with the freedom of decision-making by those public officials in whom the function of making such decisions has been vested.โ (Id.)
In Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 713, the court held โthat a transit district board of directors and inspector general were not immune from individual liability under Government Code ยง 820.2 in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit the plaintiff brought under the California False Claims Actโ [i.e. Government Code ยง 12653].โ (Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., supra, at 726].)
Similarly, in Conn v. Western Placer Unified School District (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1163, the court reached the same conclusion with respect to Education Code ยงยง 44113 and 44114:
โ[ยง] 820.2 provides for the discretionary immunity of the act or omission of a public employee only where โthe act was the result of the exercise of the discretion vestedโ in the employee. A supervisor employee has no discretion, vested or otherwise, under the Act to recommend the removal of [an employee] in violation of ยง 44113. Thus ยง 44113 is a statute which provides โotherwiseโ than Government Code ยง 820.2.โ (Id. at 1178.)
As to the police defendants, the first and fifth causes of action are not barred by Government Code 821.6 or 820.2 because those claims allege liability based at least in part on the alleged false arrest of plaintiff, while the third and fourth causes of action are barred by section 821.6 because the alleged trespass and conversion were carried out as part of a police investigation.
J. WAYNE JOHNSON VS. BROADMOOR POLICE PROTECTION DISTRICT ET AL
CGC15547675
Feb 11, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Section 820.2 immunity also applies to investigatory acts. (Newton v. Cnty. of Napa (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1561.) County Defendants correctly assert that if section 821.6 applies, so does section 820.2. (Ingram v. Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1292 [โIt follows that if section 821.6 applies, so also does section 820.2.โ].) Therefore this section equally applies and provides immunity from this suit. Third, County Defendants cite quasi-judicial immunity.
RENATO OBANDO VS LESLIE A SWAIN, ET AL.
19STCV11198
Jan 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Further, Government Code ยง 820.2 immunity also applies to investigatory acts. (Newton v. Cnty. of Napa (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1561.) Thus, because Government Code ยง 821.6 is applicable to this matter, so does Government Code ยง 820.2. (Ingram v. Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1292 [โIt follows that if section 821.6 applies, so also does section 820.2.โ].) Therefore, Government Code ยง 820.2 applies and provides further immunity from Plaintiffโs lawsuit.
RENATO OBANDO VS LESLIE A SWAIN, ET AL.
19STCV11198
Jan 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Code ยงยง 815, 820.2, 820.4, 821.6 and 821.8) Leave to amend is denied because plaintiff has not informed the court how the complaint could be amended and its does not appear to the court that plaintiff could state a claim. This ruling disposes of the case in its entirety.
JOSEPH GUY VACHON VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
37-2016-00040152-CU-OR-CTL
Feb 23, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
APP. 4TH 1491, 1495; GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 821.6, 820.4 AND 820.2. =(302/PJM/CB-X)
ARTHUR WEBB VS. WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BD. SAN FRANCISCO,CA
CGC06457104
Aug 02, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs claims do not automatically fall within the ambit of Government Code section 821.6. 2. Government Code Sections 820.2 and 822.2 Under Government Code section 820.2, 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. (Gov. Code ยง 820.2.)
BARTON WAYNE FISHBACK VS DAVID CAMPBELL, ET AL.
22STCV31683
Jul 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
THESE ACTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE IMMUNITIES IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 820.2 (DISCRETIONARY ACTS), 821.6 (INVESTIGATORY PROCESS) AND CIVIL CODE SECTION 47(A) OFFICIAL ACTS PRIVILEGE. TAYLOR V CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF WATER AND POWER (2006) 144 CAL APP 4TH 1216, 1239. THE ACTS ALLEGED IN THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ARE PROTECTED BY CIVIL CODE SECTION 47(A). LEAVE TO AMEND IS NOT GRANTED. =(302/PJM/VC)
CHRISTOPHER DAMONTE VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC06456496
Mar 25, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
Immunity: Section 820.2 โExcept 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.โ Govt. Code ยง 820.2. โ...
YOUNG HWA KIM VS RJ'S DEMOLITION & DISPOSAL ET AL
BC612631
Nov 01, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Plaintiff S.C. also argues that section 821.6 immunities do not apply to a section 815.2 claim, that the FAC does not allege a basis to find that section 820.2 and 821.6 immunities exist, and that 820.2 immunity is the exception to the rule, which should not be applied here based on a comparison of the FACs allegations and various authorities. (Oppn, pp. 4-12.) In reply, L.A.
S. C. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
21STCV21246
Mar 11, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Government Code section 821.6 provides: โA 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.โ (Gov. Code ยง 821.6.) Immunity under section 820.2 generally should not be determined on demurrer or motion to strike.
SUSANNA CONTRERAS SMITH ET AL VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL
BC666775
May 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court finds based on the plain language of Government Code 821.6 that it applies to affirmative acts and not a failure to act. However, the issue becomes more complicated when attempting to reconcile the TAC with Government Code 820.2: 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.
HOLMAN, RYAN VS. COUNTY OF BUTTE ET AL
20CV00578
Jan 12, 2022
Butte County, CA
Therefore, even if defendant Artiaga arranged for plaintiff to be drug tested, stated that plaintiff was โ5150,โ blamed plaintiff for her grandchildrenโs behaviors, or inflicted emotional distress upon plaintiff as a result of these actions, she is protected under Government Code sections 820.2, 821.6, and Penal Code section 11172. Defendants Rios and Payvendy are likewise protected in their decision to keep Artiaga assigned to plaintiffโs case.
MARY JOHNSTON V. REGINA ARTIAGA
18CECG00708
Oct 22, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Code ยงยง820.2 and 821.6 because the acts were in furtherance of inmate discipline and investigation impacting official administrative proceedings. (Torricellas v. Burkhardt, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub.
TORRICELLAS VS BURKHARDT
RIC1509979
Mar 04, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Code ยงยง820.2 and 821.6 because the acts were in furtherance of inmate discipline and investigation impacting official administrative proceedings. (Torricellas v. Burkhardt, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub.
TORRICELLAS VS BURKHARDT
RIC1509979
Mar 18, 2022
Riverside County, CA
As to County Counselโs first argument regarding immunities provided under Government Code ยง818.2, 820.2, 820.4, 821 and 821.6, County Counsel has provided no authority that these immunities apply to Constitutional challenges. All of the statutes cited to support immunity are part of Title I, Division 3.6, Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Government Code.
THE SCHARPEN FOUNDATION VS HARRIS
RIC1514022
Feb 17, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Code ยง 820.2 is inapplicable. Thus, the court DENIES the Defendantsโ motion as to Noticed Issue No. 3 as a triable issue exist as to whether Gov. Code ยง 820.2 provides an affirmative defense as to the Second Cause of Action. 4. Fourth Noticed Issue - Officer Moree, Officer Sanchez, Investigator Nguyen, and/or Deputy Porras Are Also Immune Under Gov. Code ยง 821.6 Because Their Conduct In Reporting or Investigating The Incident And Testifying Fits Within The Immunity Provisions. Gov.
STARK V. MOREE
30-2014-00706060-CU-CR-CJC
Jun 07, 2018
Orange County, CA
Govโt Code ยง 820.2 Defendants argue they are immune under Cal. Govโt Code ยง 820.2, which reads in full as follows: 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't Code ยง 820.2.
BRIAN TRENT ADAMS VS BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS EXECUTIVE OFFICER
STK-CV-UCR-2018-0003516
Jun 11, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
The court declines to apply the immunity under section 821.6 for purposes of the demurrer. The second and third immunities concern immunities related to the decision of the officers not to restrain Luther. Defendant argues the discretionary act immunity under Government Code section 820.2 applies to that decision, as does the arrest immunity under Government Code section 846.
WILSON VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
CVRI2103735
Apr 05, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The County, in its demurrer, contends that it is immune from liability under Government Code ยงยง 815.2(b), 820.2 and/or 821.6. However, as discussed above, the Corner had a mandatory duty to identify a body placed in his custody and then to attempt with reasonable diligence to locate some family member. Thus, it appears that immunity under Government Code ยง 820.2 is not applicable in this action.
KERRIGAN VS. ORANGE COUNTY
30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
Sep 17, 2018
Orange County, CA
Thus, the third cause of action, as pleaded, does not show an available immunity defense under Government Code section 820.2. 4. Government Code Section 821.6 Employees assert that pursuant to Government Code section 821.6, they are immune from liability for the third cause of action. This code section shields prosecutors and other government actors involved in investigations deemed to be part of judicial and administrative proceedings. (Paterson v.
JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN DOE V.
19-CV-343088 (consolidated with Case Nos. 19-CV-343101 and 19-CV-
Jan 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Code ยงยง 820.2, 820.4, and 821.6, the motion is DENIED. To the extent the motion contends that no triable issues of fact exist as to Gov. Code ยงยง 820.2, 820.4, and 821.6, the motion is DENIED on that basis as well. At its core, this is an excessive force case.
ROSALES, JEREMY STEVEN VS. CITY OF CHICO ET AL
20CV02380
Feb 01, 2023
Butte County, CA
Accordingly, because actions undertaken by Defendant employees were in the course of an investigation with the potential to result in a judicial proceeding, they are statutorily immune under ยง 821.6. Section 820.2 also shields Defendant employees from liability because their investigation was a discretionary act.
JUSTIN JERMAINE WILLS VS DEPARTMENT OF FAIR HOUSING EMPLOYMENT /CDR, ET AL.
22SMCV02235
Feb 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, ยงยง 815; 818.2; 820.2; 830.6; 830.8; 835.4.) Defendants Laurel Bowden and Deanna Lynn Bowden (โDefendantsโ) have failed to identify or raise triable issues of material fact as to whether a โdangerous conditionโ existed after the CIPโs implementation. As such, Defendants have not been able to raise triable issues of material fact as to The Cityโs actual or constructive notice of this unidentified condition. (Gov. Code, ยง 835.2.)
KATHLEEN FREITAG, ET AL VSI CITY OF NOVATO, ET AL
CV2000725
Jun 30, 2022
Marin County, CA
Code ยงยง820.2, 820.4, and 821.6. Under Gov. Code ยง820.2, [e]xcept 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. Under Gov. Code ยง820.4, [a] public employee is not liable for his act or omission, exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law. . . . Under Gov.
MIKE HARSINI VS DEPUTY SHERIFF MARCELLO CURKO
22TRCV00213
Feb 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Government Code section 821.6 provides: 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, ยง 821.6.)
CRISTINA PRADO VS BRIANNA CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.
21STCV02751
Nov 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Government Immunity Employees argue they are immune from liability for all the causes of action pursuant to Government Code section 820.2, or alternatively section 821.6. Section 820.2 provides immunity for public employees from liability for injuries resulting from an โact or omission...where it was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.โ (Gov. Code, ยง 820.2.)
JANE DOE 1, AND JANE DOE 2 V. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19CV348167
Oct 10, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Defendant also argues the trespass claim is also barred by Government Code ยง 820.2, which provides: โa 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.โ 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.
GOLDEN ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, ET AL.
19VECV01532
Nov 24, 2020
Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Defendant Shelburne relies on Government Code ยง 821.6 and ยง 820.2. Although not cited by the parties, Strong v. State of California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1439 explains [s]ection 821.6 provides that "[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."
GANT VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2020-00021936-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 02, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
DISCUSSION County demurs to the causes of action in the FAC, arguing that the FAC is barred by Government Code, ยงยง 815, 815.2, 820.2, 818.2, 821, 856, and 821.6. A.
J. H., A MINOR, CHILDREN OF DECEDENT, SHIN WU, THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JORGE HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV22043
Oct 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
They then assert the immunities under Government Code ยงยง820.2, 846 and 821.6 apply. Plaintiff, in opposition, asserts a special relationship existed by the officersโ affirmative representation that there were no firearms in the vehicle, Plaintiffโs expectation of protection from Luther, and the officersโ ability to control Luther.
WILSON VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
CVRI2103735
Jul 25, 2023
Riverside County, CA
County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal. 3d 710, the California Supreme Court interpreted section 821.6 as โconfining its reach to malicious prosecution actions.โ It is true that, since Sullivan, California Courts of Appeal have interpreted section 821.6 more expansively. (e.g., Kayfetz v. State, 156 Cal. App. 3d 491, 497 (โsection 821.6 is not limited to suits for damages for malicious prosecution, although that is a principal use of the statuteโ); Amylou R. v. City of Riverside (1994) 28 Cal.
KEITH LYLES ET AL VS COMPREHENSIVE CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC ET
BC626735
Jun 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
County of Riverside (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214, held that section 821.6 bars claims made by anyone who has been injured as a result of the institution or prosecution of the prior judicial or administrative proceeding, whether or not the claimant was the target of that proceeding. "Accordingly, section 821.6 immunizes both the investigating officers and, by operation of section 815.2, subdivision (b), the County from the damage claims asserted by Amylou."
ZAHARA RICHARDSON VS LISA ABRAHAM AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TERRANCE ANDRADA AKA TERRANCE B ANDRADA [E-FILE]
37-2017-00022293-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 06, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Code, ยง 821.6.) โ[A] social worker's decisions relating to . . . the investigation of child abuse, removal of a minor, and instigation of dependency proceedings, are discretionary decisions subject to immunity under section 820.2, and/or prosecutorial or quasi-prosecutorial decisions subject to immunity under section 821.6.โ (Jacqueline T. v. Alameda County Child Protective Services (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 456, 466.)
SM ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC598203
Sep 27, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The trap exception of Government Code 830.8 does not defeat the design immunity of Government Code 830.6. Fairly read and as explained by later authorities, Cameron holds that the trap exception in section 830.8 is a separate ground for liability only when a plaintiff alleges failure to warn of a condition that was not part of any design or plan that is entitled to immunity under section 830.6 and was in fact a hidden, dangerous condition.
NICHOLAS HOVLAND VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC16551391
Mar 01, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
(Government Code, ยง 821.6.) โ"Section 821.6 covers the initiation or prosecution of judicial or administrative proceedings where the target may or may not be a state employee. The policy behind section 821.6 is to encourage fearless performance of official duties.... State officers and employees are encouraged to investigate and prosecute matters within their purview without fear of reprisal from the person or entity harmed thereby.
VAN DE HEUVEL V. HORN
PC-20160500
Oct 26, 2018
El Dorado County, CA
Immunity Defendants argue that they are immune from liability under Government Code ยงยง 820.2 and 821.6 because decisions related to the placement of a child, supervision, and investigation of abuse are all discretionary.
MITZY P., ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV33400
Nov 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 532, wherein the court held that where a plaintiff is suing due to a dangerous condition and not upon the act or omission of a City employee, Section 820.2 does not operate to immunize the city from liability permitted by ยง 830.6. ( Id. at p. 549.) In a dangerous condition of public property action, the affirmative defense of design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 would be the available route for avoiding liability as opposed to immunity under Section 820.2.
NICHOLAS GRIFFITHS VS CITY OF PASADENA
19STCV41385
Apr 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Code ยงยง 815, 820.2, and 821.6. Gov. Code ยง 821.6 states, โa 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.โ Defendants argue that their investigation as to Plaintiffโs fitness constitutes a proceeding within the meaning of Gov. Code ยง 821.6. (See Shaddox v. Bertani (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1415.)
ASSOCIATION FOR L A DEPUTY SHERIFFS ET AL VS COUNTY OF L A
BC543199
Nov 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
GRANT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DESIGN IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 830.6.
CASSIDY VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1510142
Dec 15, 2016
Riverside County, CA
DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT Cross-Deft's (BOYAJIAN & CCSF) Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint - SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO indemnification; apportionment of fault; declaratory relief; conspiracy; interference with economic relationship; violation of B&P 17500; defamation; false light; right to privacy; interference with advantage UNDER GOV'T 821.6.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SF VS MCCOLM
CGC97985506
Dec 18, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Code ยงยง821.6 and 815 cover the press release, so the County and its employee Hammer are immune from liability. Pursuant to Gov. Code ยง 821.6, paragraph 17 (which cites the press release allegedly issued by defendants to the news media) cannot form the basis for any liability and hence, damages. (Gillan v. City of San Marino (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1048-1049; Amylou R. v. County of Riverside (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1209-1210.)
HOKE VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA
56-2010-00380105-CU-NP-SIM
Feb 23, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Code section 820.2 discretionary immunity. Gov. Code section 820.2 immunizes a public employee from liability 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." See Jamgotchian v. Slender (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1396.
LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI
37-2019-00010033-CU-FR-CTL
Oct 21, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Code ยงยง 820.2, 821.6, and 822.2. In particular, Gov. Code ยง 822.2 states that โ[a] public employee acting in the scope of his employment is not liable for an injury caused by his misrepresentation, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent or intentional, unless he is guilty of actual fraud, corruption or actual malice.โ Under Section 822.2, Defendantโs officer is immune from the allegations of misrepresentation made in the SAC.
MELVIN RIDEOUT VS A PENNER
18STLC10676
May 07, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, ยงยง 820.2, 821.6; Civ. Code, ยง 47.) However, the court declines to determine at this time whether these immunities and privileges would bar Plaintiffโs claims. Finally, Plaintiffโs second and third causes of action for fraud (false evidence) and intentional misrepresentation, the elements for fraud are: (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud (that is, to induce reliance on the representation); (4) justifiable reliance and (5) resulting damage. (Cicone v.
KARKKAINEN V. COUNTY OF ORANGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORโS, ET AL.
30-2018-00976905
Jun 29, 2018
Orange County, CA
Code, ยงยง 820.2, 821.6; Civ. Code, ยง 47.) However, the court declines to determine at this time whether these immunities and privileges would bar Plaintiffโs claims. Finally, Plaintiffโs second and third causes of action for fraud (false evidence) and intentional misrepresentation, the elements for fraud are: (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud (that is, to induce reliance on the representation); (4) justifiable reliance and (5) resulting damage. (Cicone v.
KARKKAINEN V. COUNTY OF ORANGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORโS, ET AL.
30-2018-00976905-CU-NP-CJC
Jun 29, 2018
Orange County, CA
Indeed, the Supreme Court in Lopez went on to categorically reject sustaining a public entityโs demurrer based on ยง820.2 immunity. The required showing โcould not have been made by [the public entity] at the demurrer stageโฆ. It therefore would be error to sustain [public entityโs] demurrer based on Government Code section 820.2.โ (Id.)
QUIROS VS. E.B.M.U.D.
MSC19-01530
Aug 21, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
. ยง820.2.) Further, social workerโs decisions relating to the investigation of child abuse, instigation of dependency proceedings, and removing a child from his custodial parent are subject to immunity under Government Code ยง820.2 and/or ยง821.6. (Jacqueline T. v. Alameda Cty. Child Protective Servs. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 456, 466; see also Ronald S. v. Cty. of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 896.)
MELODY RODGERS VS MICHEL H EISNER ET AL
BC629286
Oct 05, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court also finds Reveles and thus Defendant has immunity under Government Code section 821.6. Section 821.6 provides that โ[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.โ (Govt. Code, ยง 821.6.)
BUKSH, ZAREENA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15K10616
Dec 15, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Individual Defendants have failed to establish that Plaintiffs claims against them are barred by section 820.2. Thus, Individual Defendants demurrers based on section 820.2 must be overruled. Plaintiff offers no facts or argument to support the contention that, regardless of whether Individual Defendants may be liable for misrepresentation, the County is not.
ROBERT WARE VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.
21STCV04765
Apr 06, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Code section 821.6 codifies the rule that public employees are not liable for the institution or prosecution of any judicial or administrative proceeding, even for acts that are malicious or without probable cause. (Cal. Govt. Code ยง 821.6.) Accordingly, Defendant Carter has demonstrated that her allegedly negligent conduct in issuing a single interest check does not create a basis for liability against her pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code section 821.6.
AVINA, SALLY A VS THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
17K02349
Jul 06, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
The City demurs to the FAC arguing that the complaint is barred by immunity conferred by Government Code sections 821.6 and 815.2(b). Under Government Code section 821.6, โA 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.โ (Gov. Code, ยง 821.6.)
STEPHEN WINICK VS GATEWAY WESTWOOD 1, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV40541
Dec 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Discussion Defendant has established the elements necessary to claim immunity from liability under Government Code ยง 830.6, but plaintiff has not shown any of the elements for a public entity to lose that immunity. Defendant argues that the district is immune from liability for any injuries allegedly caused by a design or construction pursuant to Government Code ยง 830.6.
SAEIDEH AMOORI VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET
BC628035
Feb 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently establish a probability of prevailing on the merits because the individual Defendants (Raymond Koon, Elizabeth Anderson, and James Pinheiro) are immune pursuant to Government Code section 821.6. The immunity under section 821.6 includes background investigations by government employees in an administrative matter, even if there is a later decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a prosecution. (See, Richardson-Tunnel v.
BAKER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
30-2018-00976148-CU-OE-CJC
Jun 26, 2018
Orange County, CA
Code] section 820.2, and/or prosecutorial or quasi- prosecutorial decisions subject to immunity under section 821.6." (Id. at p 466; see also Khai v. Cty. of L.A. (9th Cir. 2018) 730 Fed.Appx. 408, 410, citing Jacqueline T., [social workers are immune from liability for statements made in connection with investigation by Department of Children and Family Services into alleged child abuse].)
JASBIR SINGH V. COUNTY OF FRESNO
18CECG00076
Jan 25, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
False Reports Government Code section 821.6 provides: โA 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.โ (Gov't Code ยง 821.6.)
JESUS CASTANEDA V. JAMES YATES
15CECG01086
Jan 22, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Discussion Defendants contend that the causes of action for false arrest, malicious prosecution, violation of Civil Code section 52.1, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Labor Code section 432.7 must fail because Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 820.2, Government Code section 821.6, Civil Code section 47, and Insurance Code section 1877.5.
JUANITA DENISE SCHMITTLE VS BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
BC595422
Sep 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALFRED ANYIA, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19VECV01235
Jul 02, 2020
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Defendants demur to the complaint on the grounds that (1) the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim for negligence and a violation of the Information Practices Act, (2) Peffley is immune under Government Code sections 820.2, 820.4, 820.8, and 821.6 and Civil Code section 47(b), and (3) CDCR as a state entity is immune from Plaintiffโs suit under the California Tort Claims Act and Government Code section 844.6.
ODEN VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATI...
23CV003126
Nov 29, 2023
Sacramento County, CA
Code ยง821.6โs immunity to the claims of the SAC.โ Furthermore, Plaintiffโs addendum would not have cured this issue as Gov. Code ยง821.6 is not addressed.
BEATA KAMINSKA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC595737
Dec 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The three immunities relied upon are Government Code ยงยง820.8 and 821.6, and Civil Code ยง52.1. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another person. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his own negligent or wrongful act or omission. Gov. Code, ยง 820.8.
VALERIE HOSKING, ET AL. V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
CV12-0738
Mar 01, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
WANDA NELSON V. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ET AL.
19CV06081
Oct 19, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Notice Of Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings; SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2006, LINE 9, DEFENDANT ROBERT SANCHEZ Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, NON-COMPLIANCE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 911.2 AND DEFENDANT IMMUNE GOVERNMENT CODE 821.6. =(302/REQ/KD)
HARRY F POSEY VS. ROBERT SANCHEZ
CGC06454812
Nov 29, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
Govโt Code ยง 821.6 provides: โA 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.โ A police officer who allegedly acted negligently in arresting a plaintiff and causing initiation of prosecution is immune from liability under Govโt Code ยง 821.6. Johnson v. Pacifica, 4 Cal.App.3d 82, 86 (1970).
MARK HARDING VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL
1382952
Nov 30, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Merced County Sheriff Deputies are immune pursuant to Government Code Section 821.6. (See Baughman v. State of California (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 182, 193.)
TRACEY KING VS MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ET AL.
20CV-03789
Sep 08, 2022
Merced County, CA
ANALYSIS Plaintiffโs Complaint is Barred by the Immunity Provided by Government Code section 821.6 for Investigative Communications Government Code section 821.6 provides: โA 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.โ Ibid.
JEREMY WILLIFORD VS MERCED DET. VICTORIA BONILLA ET AL.
STK-CV-UD-2021-0002714
Sep 22, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
โCalifornia courts construe section 821.6 broadly in furtherance of its purpose to protect public employees in the performance of their prosecutorial duties from threat of harassment through civil suits.โ (Gillan v. City ofSan Marina (2007) 147 Ca.l.App.4'h 1033, 1048.)
GARY D. HINES VS. RONALD DAVIS, ET AL
CV1802548
Mar 15, 2019
Marin County, CA
County of Riverside (Jun. 22, 2023) 14 Cal.5th 910, 930-931 [Section 821.6 deals with malicious prosecution, not with purely investigative conduct, which does not qualify for section 821.6 purposes absent filing of any charges].)
STEPHEN GROLLNEK VS MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
23STCV10563
Nov 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant City therefore meets its burden to demonstrate the second element for section 830.6 immunity.
CYNTHIA DOBBS ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC626459
Mar 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Code ยงยง815, 818.4, 821.6 and 821.6. In addition, plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to constitute their 6th cause of action for Discrimination pursuant to Article 1, section 31 of the California Constitution, which applies only to the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. Nor do plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to give rise to their 7th and 8th causes of action for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 and the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.
SENIOR CARE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC. VS. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PHARMACY
30-2020-01140931
Aug 14, 2020
Orange County, CA
According to plaintiffs, all claims are now derivative of the false imprisonment claim in an attempt to avoid the immunity set forth in Gov.C. ยง821.6. Gov.C. ยง821.6 provides that "[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."
ZUNIGA VS. CITY OF EL CAJON BY AND THROUGH THE EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT
37-2016-00034292-CU-CR-CTL
Dec 20, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Defendants fail to establish that Government Code ยง820.2 immunizes the individual employees from liability Defendants move for summary judgment or adjudication based on the affirmative defense set forth under Government Code ยง820.2.
AJ DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC682731
Feb 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(Government Code section 830.6). Dusseault declaration and his deposition testimony show that he reviewed the plan and ensured that it complied with both national and city standards regarding the amount of time allocated to an average pedestrian crossing the street. He approved the 2003 signal plan that was in effect at the time of the accident. The Folks declaration underscored the reasonableness of the plan. Substantial evidence of reasonableness demonstrated.
ESTATE OF KUO-CHANG ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC08478278
Oct 06, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
As to the Bane Act claims, Defendant is immune from liability (See, Gov.Code, ยงยง 815.2, 820.2, 821.6), and it is unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to show that Defendant interfered with or attempted to interfere with plaintiffโs legal right by threatening or committing violent acts. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.
NU REMEDY HEALTH CARE ET AL VS THE CITY OF PASADENA
BC719119
Feb 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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 Defendantโs second motion for summary judgment, this motion is not precluded because it seeks summary judgment on a different ground than the previous motion.
RITA DAVIDSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC693058
Mar 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The State seeks to try the issue of its defense based upon the design immunity as set forth in Government Code ยง830.6. The State is not liable for a defect in the design plan for a public improvement if it can establish the three elements that constitute the design immunity affirmative defense.
MOORE V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CV13-8038
Sep 01, 2015
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Code ยงยง 815.2(b) and 821.6. Defendants argue that the immunities set forth in Gov. Code ยงยง 815.2(b) and ยง 821.6 bar the seventh, eleventh and twelfth causes of action. Gov. Code ยง 821.6 provides: 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.
LILIAN ISELA MORALES COMPARINI VS JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS SERRAN
BC709812
Jan 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As to Officer Bianco, Defendants contend that he is immune from liability for negligence under four separate statutory immunities: (i) the "discretionary act" immunity of Government Code ยง 820.2; (ii) the "enforcement of laws" immunity of Government Code ยง 820.4; (iii) the "acts of another" immunity of Government Code ยง 820.8; and (iv) the "institution of judicial proceedings, including precedent investigations" immunity of Government Code ยง 821.6.
CAMILO LANDINEZ VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
56-2009-00356132-CU-PO-SIM
Dec 15, 2009
Ventura County, CA
County of Riverside (Jun. 22, 2023) 14 Cal.5th 910, 930-931 [Section 821.6 deals with malicious prosecution, not with purely investigative conduct, which does not qualify for section 821.6 purposes absent filing of any charges].)
STEPHEN GROLLNEK VS MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
23STCV10563
Dec 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action โ Immunity under Government Code ยง 821.6: Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant Reynolds acted within the scope of his employment with the City of Huntington Beach. (Complaint, ยถ 5.) As such, he is entitled to complete immunity for malicious prosecution by Government Code section 821.6. Thus, the motion for judgment on the Fourth Cause of Action is granted. Virgina G. v.
TORNOW V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
30-2016-00890778-CU-JR-CJC
Oct 10, 2017
Orange County, CA
Government Code section 820.2 states as follows: โExcept 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.โ Section 820.2 provides immunity for both statutory and common law claims.
INC 1209000
Nov 14, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Code, ยง 830.6.)
DENNIS GARRELS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC618325
Jan 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Defendants demur to the third cause of action for malicious prosecution on the basis of immunity under Government Code sections 821.6 and 815.2(b). (Not. Dem. 1/11/22, at 3:5-10.) Government Code section 821.6 reads in full: โA 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.โ
DAVID GONZALEZ VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ET AL.
STK-CV-UCR-2020-0007903
Apr 19, 2022
San Joaquin County, CA
Code ยง 821.6 immunity applies for Defendant. Plaintiff does not allege any statutory basis for his action against Defendant and provides no points or authorities establishing that his case falls within an exception to Gov. Code ยง 821.6. Further, Plaintiff does not allege that he complied with the claims presentation requirement for naming Defendant Michael Beveridge in this action.
KHODAYARI,MOHAMMAD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
16K11259
May 09, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
Public Entity Immunity Defendant contends that Defendant and its employees are immune from liability pursuant to Government Code sections 821.6, 818.4 and 821.2 for any conduct in connection with the dismissal of the complaints that Plaintiff submitted to Defendant regarding improper actions taken by attorneys who represented Plaintiff in her personal legal matters. Defendant is a public corporation. (Cal. Const., art. VI, ยง 9.)
REBECA YALE COHL VS STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
18STLC01185
May 07, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
Regardless, Lacey, as a public employee, would appear to be immune from liability under various provisions of the Government Code, including for discretionary acts (section 820.2), exercising due care in the execution or enforcement of any law (section 820.4), acts or omissions of others (section 820.8), and the prosecution of a judicial proceeding within the scope of her employment (section 821.6).
JOHN LAPONTE VS JACQUELYN LACEY
KC069913
Apr 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Code ยงยง 815.2. 820.2, 821.6.) These arguments have already been rejected. The Court incorporates by reference its February 1, 2018, order denying Defendantโs anti-SLAPP motion. The Court ruled that Defendant could be liable under Gov. Code ยง 815.2 which sets forth government liability for an act or omission of an employee taken within the scope of employment. Further, the Court found that Plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence that Gov.
MICHELE A DOBSON ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC633835
Feb 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Code sections 820.2 and 821.6. โ[W]hen a quasi-judicial officer, such as a prosecutor, acts within his official capacity he, like a judicial officer, enjoys absolute immunity.โ ( Fall v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.1031, 1043.) Quasi-judicial immunity has been applied to a municipal court commissioner, a building inspector, a probate court investigator, grand jurors, a deputy coroner, social workers, and Department of Social Services employees. ( Id . at 1044.)
HENRY HOOK, JR VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STLC04378
Feb 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court of Appeal explained, โThis section [821.6] applies to ... public prosecutors since [prosecutors] are public employees within the meaning of the Government Code.โ Id. at 455. It further explained that section 821.6 is not limited to immunization from malicious prosecution, and โ[b]y its terms, the provision encompasses conduct during an ongoing prosecution and not solely that leading up to the institution of a prosecution.โ Id. at 456.
JEFFREY S HORTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BC642864
May 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff does not cite to any case in the almost 50 years since Nestle extending its holding to Government Code ยง 820.2. Absent such authority, the court declines to extend Nestle to also preclude Government Code ยง 820.2 immunity for CC ยง 3479 nuisance claims. Based on the foregoing, the court finds Plaintiff's complaint is barred by Government Code ยง 820.2 immunity. However, as Plaintiff seeks leave to amend, the court allows Plaintiff 10 days leave to amend.
FIFTH AVENUE LANDING LLC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2021-00013531-CU-MC-CTL
Aug 26, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Government Code section 821.6 provides: "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."
ZAHARA RICHARDSON VS LISA ABRAHAM AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TERRANCE ANDRADA AKA TERRANCE B ANDRADA [E-FILE]
37-2017-00022293-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 30, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Gov't Code 821.6. In Stearns v. Los Angeles County (1969) 275 Cal. App. 2d 134, 136, Dr. Kade, a Deputy County Coroner, was accused by Plaintiff of negligently performing an autopsy upon Plaintiff's wife. The Court made it clear that Plaintiff's "entire complaint [was] the contention that ... [Dr. Kade's] negligence in performing the autopsy on plaintiff's wife, caused his prosecution for the alleged murder ...." Id. at 137.
JACOBS VS. BLACKBOURNE
37-2018-00022730-CU-PN-CTL
Jan 24, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Code ยงยง 815.2(b) and 821.6. Defendants argue that the immunities set forth in Gov. Code ยงยง 815.2(b) and ยง 821.6 bar the seventh, eleventh and twelfth causes of action. Gov. Code ยง 821.6 provides: 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.
LILIAN ISELA MORALES COMPARINI VS JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS SERRAN
BC709812
Mar 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Code ยงยง 820.2 & 821.6 render Defendant immune from liability, as the relevant code sections make discretionary any decisions relating the placement of a child, supervision of the placement, and investigations into abuse. (Jacqueline T, supra, at 465 โ 468.) Under ยง 820.2, a public employee cannot be held liable for any injury resulting from โhis act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.โ Gov.
GARY AGOSTO,, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS JUNE LOVE AGOSTO'S SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY
21STCV06943
Aug 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Government Code ยงยง 815.2 and 820.2 Next, Defendant SCT argues that Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.2 also bar recovery because the decision regarding the timing and nature of the public health measures to be taken in response to the virusโor whether to enact such measures at allโare entirely discretionary, which are protected by immunity. Government Code section 815.2(b) provides that liability cannot be imposed on a public entity if its employee is immune from liability.
JANELLE NICOLE BOHANAN, ET AL. VS MV TRANSPORTATION INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV09281
Oct 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
It argues that it is immune under Government Code ยง818.8 for any statements that are financial or commercial, and under Government Code ยง821.6 for any investigation or prosecution. Plaintiff contends the motion is untimely. She asserts that section 821.6 does not apply because she is not suing for Chief Gonzalezโs investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.
GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1904033
Sep 04, 2022
Riverside County, CA
It argues that it is immune under Government Code ยง818.8 for any statements that are financial or commercial, and under Government Code ยง821.6 for any investigation or prosecution. Plaintiff contends the motion is untimely. She asserts that section 821.6 does not apply because she is not suing for Chief Gonzalezโs investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.
GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1904033
Sep 05, 2022
Riverside County, CA
It argues that it is immune under Government Code ยง818.8 for any statements that are financial or commercial, and under Government Code ยง821.6 for any investigation or prosecution. Plaintiff contends the motion is untimely. She asserts that section 821.6 does not apply because she is not suing for Chief Gonzalezโs investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.
GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1904033
Sep 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
It argues that it is immune under Government Code ยง818.8 for any statements that are financial or commercial, and under Government Code ยง821.6 for any investigation or prosecution. Plaintiff contends the motion is untimely. She asserts that section 821.6 does not apply because she is not suing for Chief Gonzalezโs investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.
GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE
RIC1904033
Sep 03, 2022
Riverside County, CA
any material fact as to whether (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury (Govโt Code ยง 835), (2) the City of Los Angeles had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Government Code ยง 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition (Govโt Code ยง 835), and (3) defendant City of Los Angeles is not liable for plaintiffโs injuries pursuant to the affirmative defense of design immunity (Govโt Code ยง 830.6
BOBBY BONILLA VS RENE ALMENARI II ET AL
BC598908
Jul 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
County of San Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4th 340, 343; see Gov't Code ยง 830.6; CACI 1123.)
WILSON V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
30-2019-01094238
Aug 06, 2020
Orange County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.