Public Employee Immunity in California

What Is Public Employee Immunity?

Purpose and Scope of Statutes

Government Code ยง 820.2 provides:

โ€œExcept 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€

(Gov. Code ยง 820.2.)

Government Code ยง 821.6 provides:

โ€œA 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.)

ยง 820.2 provides immunity only for the acts or omissions that are โ€œthe result of the exercise of the discretionโ€ vested in a public employee. .... โ€œ[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)

Public Employee Immunity and Public Works

Govt. Code ยง 830.6. โ€œNeither 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:

  1. a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or
  2. a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor.

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.

โ€œThe rationale behind design immunity 'is to prevent a jury from simply reweighing the same factors considered by the governmental entity which approved the design.โ€™โ€ (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.)

Employees Without Immunity

In Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 713, the court held โ€œthat 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€œ[ยง] 820.2 provides for the discretionary immunity of the act or omission of a public employee only where โ€˜the 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 โ€˜otherwiseโ€™ than Government Code ยง 820.2.โ€ (Id. at 1178.)

Rulings for Public Employee Immunity in California

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.

  • Name

    J. WAYNE JOHNSON VS. BROADMOOR POLICE PROTECTION DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15547675

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2016

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 [โ€œIt 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.

  • Name

    RENATO OBANDO VS LESLIE A SWAIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11198

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

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 [โ€œIt 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 Plaintiffโ€™s lawsuit.

  • Name

    RENATO OBANDO VS LESLIE A SWAIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11198

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH GUY VACHON VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00040152-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

APP. 4TH 1491, 1495; GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 821.6, 820.4 AND 820.2. =(302/PJM/CB-X)

  • Name

    ARTHUR WEBB VS. WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BD. SAN FRANCISCO,CA

  • Case No.

    CGC06457104

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2007

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.)

  • Name

    BARTON WAYNE FISHBACK VS DAVID CAMPBELL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31683

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2023

  • County

    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)

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER DAMONTE VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06456496

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2008

Immunity: Section 820.2 โ€œExcept 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€œ...

  • Name

    YOUNG HWA KIM VS RJ'S DEMOLITION & DISPOSAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC612631

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

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.

  • Name

    S. C. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV21246

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Government Code section 821.6 provides: โ€œA 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.

  • Name

    SUSANNA CONTRERAS SMITH ET AL VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL

  • Case No.

    BC666775

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2018

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.

  • Name

    HOLMAN, RYAN VS. COUNTY OF BUTTE ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV00578

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2022

Therefore, even if defendant Artiaga arranged for plaintiff to be drug tested, stated that plaintiff was โ€œ5150,โ€ blamed plaintiff for her grandchildrenโ€™s 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 plaintiffโ€™s case.

  • Name

    MARY JOHNSTON V. REGINA ARTIAGA

  • Case No.

    18CECG00708

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

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.

  • Name

    TORRICELLAS VS BURKHARDT

  • Case No.

    RIC1509979

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2022

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.

  • Name

    TORRICELLAS VS BURKHARDT

  • Case No.

    RIC1509979

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2022

As to County Counselโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    THE SCHARPEN FOUNDATION VS HARRIS

  • Case No.

    RIC1514022

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

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.

  • Name

    STARK V. MOREE

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00706060-CU-CR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2018

Govโ€™t Code ยง 820.2 Defendants argue they are immune under Cal. Govโ€™t 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.

  • Name

    BRIAN TRENT ADAMS VS BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UCR-2018-0003516

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2019

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.

  • Name

    WILSON VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

  • Case No.

    CVRI2103735

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KERRIGAN VS. ORANGE COUNTY

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2018

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19-CV-343088 (consolidated with Case Nos. 19-CV-343101 and 19-CV-

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ROSALES, JEREMY STEVEN VS. CITY OF CHICO ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV02380

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUSTIN JERMAINE WILLS VS DEPARTMENT OF FAIR HOUSING EMPLOYMENT /CDR, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV02235

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code, ยงยง 815; 818.2; 820.2; 830.6; 830.8; 835.4.) Defendants Laurel Bowden and Deanna Lynn Bowden (โ€œDefendantsโ€) have failed to identify or raise triable issues of material fact as to whether a โ€œdangerous conditionโ€ existed after the CIPโ€™s implementation. As such, Defendants have not been able to raise triable issues of material fact as to The Cityโ€™s actual or constructive notice of this unidentified condition. (Gov. Code, ยง 835.2.)

  • Name

    KATHLEEN FREITAG, ET AL VSI CITY OF NOVATO, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000725

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MIKE HARSINI VS DEPUTY SHERIFF MARCELLO CURKO

  • Case No.

    22TRCV00213

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    CRISTINA PRADO VS BRIANNA CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV02751

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2021

  • County

    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 โ€œact 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.)

  • Name

    JANE DOE 1, AND JANE DOE 2 V. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV348167

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

Defendant also argues the trespass claim is also barred by Government Code ยง 820.2, which provides: โ€œa 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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19VECV01532

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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."

  • Name

    GANT VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00021936-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV22043

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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, Plaintiffโ€™s expectation of protection from Luther, and the officersโ€™ ability to control Luther.

  • Name

    WILSON VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

  • Case No.

    CVRI2103735

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal. 3d 710, the California Supreme Court interpreted section 821.6 as โ€˜confining 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 (โ€œsection 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.

  • Name

    KEITH LYLES ET AL VS COMPREHENSIVE CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC ET

  • Case No.

    BC626735

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2017

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."

  • Name

    ZAHARA RICHARDSON VS LISA ABRAHAM AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TERRANCE ANDRADA AKA TERRANCE B ANDRADA [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00022293-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2018

Code, ยง 821.6.) โ€œ[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.)

  • Name

    SM ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC598203

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

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.

  • Name

    NICHOLAS HOVLAND VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16551391

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

(Government Code, ยง 821.6.) โ€œ"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.

  • Name

    VAN DE HEUVEL V. HORN

  • Case No.

    PC-20160500

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MITZY P., ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV33400

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2021

(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.

  • Name

    NICHOLAS GRIFFITHS VS CITY OF PASADENA

  • Case No.

    19STCV41385

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2022

Code ยงยง 815, 820.2, and 821.6. Gov. Code ยง 821.6 states, โ€œa 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 Plaintiffโ€™s fitness constitutes a proceeding within the meaning of Gov. Code ยง 821.6. (See Shaddox v. Bertani (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1415.)

  • Name

    ASSOCIATION FOR L A DEPUTY SHERIFFS ET AL VS COUNTY OF L A

  • Case No.

    BC543199

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2018

GRANT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DESIGN IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 830.6.

  • Name

    CASSIDY VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    RIC1510142

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

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.

  • Name

    CITY AND COUNTY OF SF VS MCCOLM

  • Case No.

    CGC97985506

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2002

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.)

  • Name

    HOKE VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00380105-CU-NP-SIM

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2011

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.

  • Name

    LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00010033-CU-FR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

Code ยงยง 820.2, 821.6, and 822.2. In particular, Gov. Code ยง 822.2 states that โ€œ[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, Defendantโ€™s officer is immune from the allegations of misrepresentation made in the SAC.

  • Name

    MELVIN RIDEOUT VS A PENNER

  • Case No.

    18STLC10676

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    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 Plaintiffโ€™s claims. Finally, Plaintiffโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    KARKKAINEN V. COUNTY OF ORANGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORโ€™S, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00976905

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2018

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 Plaintiffโ€™s claims. Finally, Plaintiffโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    KARKKAINEN V. COUNTY OF ORANGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORโ€™S, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00976905-CU-NP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2018

Indeed, the Supreme Court in Lopez went on to categorically reject sustaining a public entityโ€™s demurrer based on ยง820.2 immunity. The required showing โ€œcould not have been made by [the public entity] at the demurrer stageโ€ฆ. It therefore would be error to sustain [public entityโ€™s] demurrer based on Government Code section 820.2.โ€ (Id.)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    MSC19-01530

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

. ยง820.2.) Further, social workerโ€™s 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.)

  • Name

    MELODY RODGERS VS MICHEL H EISNER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC629286

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2016

The Court also finds Reveles and thus Defendant has immunity under Government Code section 821.6. Section 821.6 provides that โ€œ[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.)

  • Name

    BUKSH, ZAREENA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    15K10616

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    ROBERT WARE VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV04765

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AVINA, SALLY A VS THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    17K02349

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    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, โ€œA 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.)

  • Name

    STEPHEN WINICK VS GATEWAY WESTWOOD 1, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV40541

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

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.

  • Name

    SAEIDEH AMOORI VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC628035

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

    BAKER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00976148-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2018

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].)

  • Name

    JASBIR SINGH V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

  • Case No.

    18CECG00076

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2019

False Reports Government Code section 821.6 provides: โ€œA 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.)

  • Name

    JESUS CASTANEDA V. JAMES YATES

  • Case No.

    15CECG01086

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JUANITA DENISE SCHMITTLE VS BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

  • Case No.

    BC595422

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19VECV01235

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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 Plaintiffโ€™s suit under the California Tort Claims Act and Government Code section 844.6.

  • Name

    ODEN VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATI...

  • Case No.

    23CV003126

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2023

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

Code ยง821.6โ€™s immunity to the claims of the SAC.โ€ Furthermore, Plaintiffโ€™s addendum would not have cured this issue as Gov. Code ยง821.6 is not addressed.

  • Name

    BEATA KAMINSKA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC595737

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    VALERIE HOSKING, ET AL. V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CV12-0738

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19CV06081

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

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)

  • Name

    HARRY F POSEY VS. ROBERT SANCHEZ

  • Case No.

    CGC06454812

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2006

Govโ€™t Code ยง 821.6 provides: โ€œA 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 Govโ€™t Code ยง 821.6. Johnson v. Pacifica, 4 Cal.App.3d 82, 86 (1970).

  • Name

    MARK HARDING VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

  • Case No.

    1382952

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2011

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.)

  • Name

    TRACEY KING VS MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV-03789

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2022

  • County

    Merced County, CA

ANALYSIS Plaintiffโ€™s Complaint is Barred by the Immunity Provided by Government Code section 821.6 for Investigative Communications Government Code section 821.6 provides: โ€œA 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.

  • Name

    JEREMY WILLIFORD VS MERCED DET. VICTORIA BONILLA ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UD-2021-0002714

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2021

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

โ€œCalifornia 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.)

  • Name

    GARY D. HINES VS. RONALD DAVIS, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1802548

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

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].)

  • Name

    STEPHEN GROLLNEK VS MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV10563

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant City therefore meets its burden to demonstrate the second element for section 830.6 immunity.

  • Name

    CYNTHIA DOBBS ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC626459

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SENIOR CARE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC. VS. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PHARMACY

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01140931

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

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."

  • Name

    ZUNIGA VS. CITY OF EL CAJON BY AND THROUGH THE EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00034292-CU-CR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2017

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.

  • Name

    AJ DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC682731

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF KUO-CHANG ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08478278

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2009

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 plaintiffโ€™s legal right by threatening or committing violent acts. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.

  • Name

    NU REMEDY HEALTH CARE ET AL VS THE CITY OF PASADENA

  • Case No.

    BC719119

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

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 Defendantโ€™s second motion for summary judgment, this motion is not precluded because it seeks summary judgment on a different ground than the previous motion.

  • Name

    RITA DAVIDSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC693058

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MOORE V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    CV13-8038

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2015

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LILIAN ISELA MORALES COMPARINI VS JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS SERRAN

  • Case No.

    BC709812

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CAMILO LANDINEZ VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00356132-CU-PO-SIM

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2009

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].)

  • Name

    STEPHEN GROLLNEK VS MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV10563

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    TORNOW V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00890778-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2017

Government Code section 820.2 states as follows: โ€œExcept 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.

  • Case No.

    INC 1209000

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2017

Code, ยง 830.6.)

  • Name

    DENNIS GARRELS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC618325

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2018

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: โ€œA 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€

  • Name

    DAVID GONZALEZ VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UCR-2020-0007903

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KHODAYARI,MOHAMMAD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    16K11259

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    REBECA YALE COHL VS STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    18STLC01185

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    JOHN LAPONTE VS JACQUELYN LACEY

  • Case No.

    KC069913

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2018

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 Defendantโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    MICHELE A DOBSON ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC633835

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

Code sections 820.2 and 821.6. โ€œ[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.)

  • Name

    HENRY HOOK, JR VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STLC04378

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court of Appeal explained, โ€œThis 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€œ[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.

  • Name

    JEFFREY S HORTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

  • Case No.

    BC642864

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

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.

  • Name

    FIFTH AVENUE LANDING LLC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00013531-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

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."

  • Name

    ZAHARA RICHARDSON VS LISA ABRAHAM AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TERRANCE ANDRADA AKA TERRANCE B ANDRADA [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00022293-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    JACOBS VS. BLACKBOURNE

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00022730-CU-PN-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

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.

  • Name

    LILIAN ISELA MORALES COMPARINI VS JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS SERRAN

  • Case No.

    BC709812

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2021

  • County

    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 โ€œhis 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.

  • Name

    GARY AGOSTO,, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS JUNE LOVE AGOSTO'S SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

  • Case No.

    21STCV06943

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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 virusโ€”or whether to enact such measures at allโ€”are 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.

  • Name

    JANELLE NICOLE BOHANAN, ET AL. VS MV TRANSPORTATION INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV09281

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2021

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 Gonzalezโ€™s investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.

  • Name

    GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    RIC1904033

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2022

  • County

    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 Gonzalezโ€™s investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.

  • Name

    GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    RIC1904033

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2022

  • County

    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 Gonzalezโ€™s investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.

  • Name

    GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    RIC1904033

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2022

  • County

    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 Gonzalezโ€™s investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, but the fact that she was fired for reporting illegal activity.

  • Name

    GREER VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    RIC1904033

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

any material fact as to whether (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury (Govโ€™t 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 (Govโ€™t Code ยง 835), and (3) defendant City of Los Angeles is not liable for plaintiffโ€™s injuries pursuant to the affirmative defense of design immunity (Govโ€™t Code ยง 830.6

  • Name

    BOBBY BONILLA VS RENE ALMENARI II ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC598908

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2017

County of San Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4th 340, 343; see Gov't Code ยง 830.6; CACI 1123.)

  • Name

    WILSON V. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01094238

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope