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

KARLA GOMEZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Act.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GRADY THOMAS VS LEIDOS, INC., ET AL.

Fourteenth Cause of Action for Bane Act Violation Defendants demur to the fifteenth cause of action on the grounds that no qualifying threats, intimidation or coercion is alleged. Bane Act liability occurs when a defendant’s threats, intimidation or coercion interferes or attempts to interfere “with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual 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.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEFFREY D. EVERHARD V. COMMUNITY ARTS MUSIC ASSOCIATION OF SANTA BARBARA, INC., ET AL.

[FAC 21:7-8] The causes of action are 1) violation of the ADA and Civil Code §§ 41 & 42 (CAMA, Doe 3); 2) “Unlawful Exclusion ADDITIONAL COUNT” (CAMA, Alvarez); 3) battery (CAMA, Doe 1); 4) violation of Bane Act, statutory damages (CAMA, Doe 1); 5) violation of Bane Act, actual and compensatory damages (CAMA, Doe 1); 6) invasion of privacy (CAMA, Doe 3); 7) general negligence (CAMA, Alvarez); 8) breach of contract (CAMA); 9) abrogation of protected speech (CAMA, Alvarez); and 10) Ralph Act (CAMA, Alvarez, Does

  • Hearing

JASETTE H MCKINNEY VS FIGUEROA COURT APARTMENTS LP ET AL

ACF together with Figueroa, and Hartford, demur to the entire SAC and move to strike the SAC’s prayers for punitive damages, Bane Act treble damages and civil penalties, attorney fees, and criminal restitution. The motions are opposed.¿ For the reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the demurrers without leave to amend and denies as moot the motions to strike. Standard Demurrer A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAGE M. MCADAMS VS KIUMARS ARFAI, ET AL.

The complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute the 8th cause of action for Violation of the Ralph Act (CC 51.7).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

The Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of the Bane Act. The Court notes that the Bane Act is reliant upon satisfactory allegations under Section 51 because it is an essential part of satisfying the requirements under Civil Code Section 52, subd. (a).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ANIMAL PROTECTION VS RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S

SUSTAIN the demurrer to the second cause of action for violation of the Ralph Act and to the third cause of action for violation of the Bane Act without leave to amend. OVERRULE the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for declaratory relief. 1st CofA: The first cause of action for negligence is pleaded on behalf of both Plaintiffs, although there is no dispute that APRL did not file a government tort claim. Nor are there any allegations that Deputy Lesso breached any duty owed to APRL. (FAC, ¶¶ 23-25.)

  • Hearing

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

.; and Violation of Bane Act – Civil Code §§ 52, et seq. Defendants now move to strike allegations in the Complaint related to communications made in connection with Plaintiff Jada’s Targeted Student Safety Plan, communications regarding Plaintiff Jada’s safety and status at North Torrance High School (“NHS”), and communications regarding Plaintiff Jada’s inter-district permit to stay at NHS as an unlawful Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GENERNAL LOGISTICS SYSTEM US, INC. VS ARNEL SINSAY, ET AL.

.; and Violation of Bane Act – Civil Code §§ 52, et seq. Defendants now move to strike allegations in the Complaint related to communications made in connection with Plaintiff Jada’s Targeted Student Safety Plan, communications regarding Plaintiff Jada’s safety and status at North Torrance High School (“NHS”), and communications regarding Plaintiff Jada’s inter-district permit to stay at NHS as an unlawful Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDDIE RANKIN, III VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action; (1) violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1), (2) violation of the Ralph Act (Civil Code § 51.7), (3) battery against Kardouni, (4) negligence. On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a doe amendment to the Complaint naming Kardouni as Doe 1. Plaintiff now moves to compel CDCR to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production under CCP sections “2031.320 and 2031.240”[1].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

LIGGINS V. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC

Second Cause of Action (Ralph Act—Violence or Intimidation by Threat of Violence): Defendant challenges the second cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) and (f). Defendant contends that the SAC fails to state a cause of action under Civil Code sections 51.7, 52, and 52.1. (Demurrer; 6:7.)

  • Hearing

JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LEON ADJODHA VS ROBERT WRIGHT, ET AL.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed July 29, 2020, alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract and partnership agreement against all Defendants; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against all Defendants; (3) Bane Act violations against Wright; (4) declaratory relief against Wright; and (5) violation of Penal Code § 496 against all Defendants. B.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SWEIS VS. SAWIES

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for violation of the Ralph Act (Civ.

  • Hearing

BERNARDO ARTEAGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO DECEDENT, DANIEL ARTEAGA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) wrongful death, and (4) violation of the Bane Act. Bernardo alleges that Decedent was an inmate in the County’s Twin Towers Correctional Facility (TTCF) and had serious mental health issues. Bernardo alleges that Decedent died in his jail cell on January 22, 2018 due to the County’s negligence.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALISON SMITH VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

The third amended complaint (“TAC”), filed September 22, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) inverse condemnation; (2) nuisance; (3) dangerous condition of public property; and (4) violation of Civil Code, § 52.1 Bane Act. On October 25, 2019, City filed a cross-complaint for: (1) preliminary and permanent injunction for abatement of public nuisance; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) quantum meruit against Alison and Paul Smith. B.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Further, it noted that there was nothing in the language of the Bane Act which indicated that it created even a general rule of actionable duty for public entities. Thus, since the specific immunity prevailed over the general statutory liability provided by the Bane Act, the court found the agency immune from Towery’s Bane Act claims. Similarly, the court in O’Toole v.

  • Hearing

JACOB ROGERS VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, ET AL.

Bane Act A cause of action under the Bane Act requires plaintiff to allege interference or attempted interference “by threat, intimidation, or coercion” with the “exercise or enjoyment” of a plaintiff’s rights under the Federal or State Constitution. Cal. Civ. Code §52.1(a); Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 891 F.3d.776, 799. Defendants argues no facts allege defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BREWER VS, TDI AUTO GROUP

On August 13, 2019, plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging five Causes of Action: 1) Violation of Unruh Act; 2) Violation of Bane Act; 3) Violation of Ralph Act; 4) Assault; and 5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. As defendants, plaintiff named TDI Auto Group, Inc., five individual employees, and Does 1-100.

  • Hearing

PAMELA DE SOMOV VS BACK2HEALTH REHAB SERVICES INC ET AL

., Vladislav Shut, Irena Shut, and Ian Novotny (“Defendants”), asserting causes of action for: (1) sexual battery, (2) false imprisonment, (3) gender violence, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention, and (6) violation of the Ralph Act. Defendants now seek to compel further responses to certain Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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; Mamo is Mr. Ewnetu’s mother.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MANN VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Petitioner also asserts the District violated the Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1), which prohibits a person from interfering or attempting to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion of any rights provided by law. Although the recommendations to the Board listed improper political activity or conflict of interests as a basis for discipline (AR, Ex. 9, p. 6), none of the allegations in the Statement of Charges involves Petitioner’s political affiliation or legitimate political activities.

  • Hearing

DAMONE DANIEL, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

Act; (17) aiding and abetting; (18) battery; (19) assault; (20) civil harassment, Civil Code, §527.6; (21) Conspiracy, CACI No. 3600; (22) unlawful removal of child from parent custody without a warrant 3051; (23) defamation per se, Civil Code, §46(3)(5); (24) Bane Act violation, Civil Code, §52.1; (25) malicious prosecution; (26) gross negligence: (27) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee; (28) IIED; and (29)-(30) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PORTER VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Bane Act (C/A 3) Plaintiffs sued the City for violation of the Bane Act, Civil Code section 52.1. “Under the Bane Act, if a person interferes ‘by threat, intimidation, or coercion,’ or attempts to do so, with any individual's exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitutions or laws of the United States or California, the individual may bring a civil action for damages and other relief. (Civ. Code, § 52.1, subds. (b) & (c).)”

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.