What are violations of the Ralph and Bane Acts?

Useful Rulings on Violations of the Ralph and Bane Acts

Recent Rulings on Violations of the Ralph and Bane Acts

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Bane Act (Claim 6) Petitioners assert a claim under the Bane Act, Civil Code section 52.1, which authorizes an action for injunctive and equitable relief against anyone who “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion . . . with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state[.]” (Civ. Code § 52.1.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LEON ADJODHA VS ROBERT WRIGHT, ET AL.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed January 14, 2020, alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of partnership agreement against all Defendants; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against all Defendants; (3) Bane Act violations against Wright; (4) declaratory relief against all Defendants; and (5) violation of Penal Code §496 against all Defendants. B. Demurrer On February 25, 2020, Larocca and Pelican filed a demurrer to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action alleged in the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Constitution; (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (7) invasion of privacy under article I, section I of the California Constitution; (8) Bane Act violations; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) unfair and deceptive business practices; and (11) slander of title. The City subsequently demurred to all of the claims asserted in the Falcocchia’s cross- complaint on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 43010, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

CHARLES BERNARD DAVIS, SR. V. MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, ET AL.

There is no need to consider whether DIAZ can be held liable as a supervisor for his subordinates’ Ralph Act violations where there are no violations. The Bane Act is similar.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

COURTNEY HAYES VS FERMIN VASQUEZ, ET AL.

In opposition, plaintiff argue that the Ralph Act applies extraterritorially, citing to the Code of Regulations. Plaintiff’s case citations are inapplicable and unpersuasive. California statues are presumed not to have extraterritorial effect. See Sullivan v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ESTATE OF ZELALEM ESHETU EWNETU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LA ET AL

The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 17, 2018, and asserts causes of action for negligence (wrongful death), violation of Civil Rights under the Bane Act, negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and battery. This lawsuit arises out of the shooting death of Zelalem Ewnetu by Sheriff’s Department deputies on April 12, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

To the extent that defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s Bane Act cause of action is based upon the Shoyoye court’s requirement, it necessarily fails. Finally, this leaves the issue of whether the conduct giving rise to a Bane Act claim can be protected by the Section 821.6 immunity. Neither defendants’ demurrer nor plaintiff’s opposition have provided the Court with any authority categorically applying the immunity to Bane Act claims, or categorically excluding it from application to Bane Act claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

FELIZ VS THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

The Bane Act: The Bane Act, enacted in 1987, prohibits all interference or attempted interference with another’s rights under federal and California law by "threats, intimidation, or coercion." (Civ. Code, § 52.1(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

“Under the Ralph Act (Civil Code § 51.7), a plaintiff must establish the defendant threatened or committed violent acts against the plaintiff or their property, and a motivating reason for doing so was a prohibited discriminatory motive, or that the defendant aided, incited, or conspired in the denial of a protected right.” (Gabrielle A. v. County of Orange (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1268, 1291.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HIBBS V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

The third cause of action alleges a Bane Act violation under Civil Code section 52.1. The demurrer points out that the allegations suggest the plaintiff was properly arrested for an outstanding warrant. No other facts are alleged, and the plaintiff fails to address this issue in her opposition, thereby conceding the argument. The County shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JOSEPH LEE GREEN VS. CITY OF STOCKTON, A PUBLIC ENTITY

The Court is inclined to rule that the $25,000 Bane Act statutory additur is not applicable, under Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Invine Co., LLC (2019) 37 CA5th 97, 115-116. In the event Counsel can not resolve the issues after this guidance by the Court, the Court might appoint a Special Master or Referee to give the Court a recommendation as to the fees.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff has not alleged that the “unknown security guards” prevented Plaintiff from exercising or enjoying a statutory or constitutional right or engaged, or attempted to engage, in coercion, intimidation, or threats necessary to a Bane Act claim. Accordingly, Nightclub’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action is sustained. 2. Motion to Strike Based on the ruling made on the demurrer, the motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JANE DOE,A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN DOE VS NEIL DAVID KIMBALL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

. § 1983); Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1); Violation of Ralphs Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7); Sexual Battery (Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5); Battery; Assault; and Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Kimball was a detective in the Sex Crimes Unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who used his power to rape a minor rape victim he was assigned to protect.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CRYSTAL PEREZ VS KAISER PERMANENTE ET AL

County of Los Angeles (Venegas II) ((2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 843), the state Supreme Court observed that torts based on an unlawful search and seizure were sufficient under the Bane Act. The court declined to limit which torts were covered by the Act, describing imposition of such a limitation as “more a legislative concern than a judicial one[.]” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LIGGINS V. ESA MANAGEMENT

Second Cause of Action for Ralph Act—Violence or Intimidation by Threat of Violence: Similar to the first cause of action, the FAC alleges Plaintiff refers to both Civil Code section 51.7 and Civil Code section 52.1. (FAC, ¶ 51.) These code sections assert separate forms of liability. (FAC, ¶ 51.). Again, the FAC identifies Defendants as a group, and asserts the alleged Civil Code violations against Defendants as a group. (FAC, ¶ 51.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

ELSINGER V. CISNEROS

Defendants’ alternative motion for summary adjudication as to the (1) first cause of action for Wrongful Death; (2) second cause of action for Assault and Battery; (3) third cause of action for Negligence; and (4) fourth cause of action for Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) is also DENIED. Defendants’ separate statement is deficient as to the alternative motion for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

LIGGINS V. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC

Second Cause of Action for Ralph Act—Violence or Intimidation by Threat of Violence: Similar to the first cause of action, the FAC alleges Plaintiff refers to both Civil Code section 51.7 and Civil Code section 52.1. (FAC, ¶ 51.) These code sections assert separate forms of liability. (FAC, ¶ 51.). Again, the FAC identifies Defendants as a group, and asserts the alleged Civil Code violations against Defendants as a group. (FAC, ¶ 51.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

ZHOIE PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS EDDUIN ZELAYA GRUNFELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The Court, therefore, DENIES Grunfeld’s request that because the SAC fails to state a cause of action for violation of the Ralph Act and Bane Act, Plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees, civil penalties, and treble damages should be stricken. The Court GRANTS IN PART Grunfeld’s motion to strike. Grunfeld shall have twenty days to answer the SAC. The respective moving parties are each ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TAMERIN LEWIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

“Under the Ralph Act, a plaintiff must establish the defendant threatened or committed violent acts against the plaintiff or their property, and a motivating reason for doing so was a prohibited discriminatory motive, or that the defendant aided, incited, or conspired in the denial of a protected right.” ((Gabrielle A. v. County of Orange (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1268, 1291); (see also Civ. Code, § 51.7, subd.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

LOCKE, ET AL. V. PARK MGMT. CORP., ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ causes of action for violation of the Ralph Act and the Bane Act allege conduct intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs, thereby adequately establishing the malice necessary for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

DARRELL KROEGER VS L3 TECHNOLOGIES INC ET AL

Defendants successfully moved to dismiss each cause of action, except for the fifth, on LMRA/NLRA preemption grounds and failure to state a cause of action as to the Ralph and Bane Act claims.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TAMERIN LEWIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Kumlander now moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the third (violation of the Ralph Act) cause of action. Plaintiff opposes. Evidence The Court grants Kumlander’s request for judicial notice. The Court rules on Kumlander’s evidentiary objections as follows: Objection 1: sustained Objection 2: sustained The Court notes that Plaintiff filed untimely evidentiary objections on December 9, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

MARIAH CAREY VS LIANNA SHAKHNAZARIAN

Act, (12) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (14) battery.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MICAH FOSTER VS PLAYA VILLAS LLC, ET AL.

intentional infliction of emotional distress, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (3) housing discrimination in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code § 12955; (4) retaliatory eviction in violation of Civil Code § 1942.5; (5) negligence, (6) nuisance; (7) breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (8) Bane Act – Violation of California Code § 52.1; (9) breach of Covenant of Fair Dealing, (10) Vicarious Liability, pursuant to Civil Code 1430, and (11) negligent

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

LUIS ZULETA, ET AL. VS ELIZA KIM

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) retaliation in violation of California Civil Code, Sections 1942.5(a) and 1942.5(d); (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of California Civil Code, Section 1940.2—covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) violation of California Civil Code, Section 52.1—Bane Act; (5) breach of common law duty of care, including tortious negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) violation of California

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.