California Laws|Section 3309.5.

                                                

3309.5.  

(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter.

(b) Nothing in subdivision (h) of Section 11181 shall be construed to affect the rights and protections afforded to state public safety officers under this chapter or under Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

(c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter.

(d) (1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer.

(2) If the court finds that a bad faith or frivolous action or a filing for an improper purpose has been brought pursuant to this chapter, the court may order sanctions against the party filing the action, the party’s attorney, or both, pursuant to Sections 128.6 and 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Those sanctions may include, but not be limited to, reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by a public safety department as the court deems appropriate. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to subject actions or filings under this section to rules or standards that are different from those applicable to other civil actions or filings subject to Section 128.6 or 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by a superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied and for reasonable attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court. If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages. Notwithstanding these provisions, a public safety department may not be required to indemnify a contractor for the contractor’s liability pursuant to this subdivision if there is, within the contract between the public safety department and the contractor, a “hold harmless” or similar provision that protects the public safety department from liability for the actions of the contractor. An individual shall not be liable for any act for which a public safety department is liable under this section.

(Amended by Stats. 2005, Ch. 22, Sec. 70. Effective January 1, 2006.)

View Latest Rulings

The Court of Appeal reversed and held that Government Code section 3309.5 permitted the plaintiff to pursue, simultaneously, his administrative appeal from the discipline imposed, and judicial relief pursuant to section 3309.5.

  • Name

    IVAN MORAN VS. CITY OF PASADENA, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC064281

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

The Court held that the plaintiff was not permitted to file an action for damages under Government Code section 3309.5, but he could file a concurrent claim to seek injunctive or extraordinary relief under section 3309.5, on the ground that his employer had violated his rights under POBRA, even though his employer had already issued its final administrative decision.

  • Name

    IVAN MORAN VS. CITY OF PASADENA, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC064281

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2018

Relief under Gov’t Code section 3309.5 is denied.

  • Name

    ERIC MOREJON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • Case No.

    BS174155

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

Government Code section 3309.5: Respondent also argues Petitioner’s claim for writ relief under Government Code section 3309.5 fails as a matter of law. The SAP alleges Respondent violated Government Code section 3303, subdivision (g) by failing to “provide [Petitioner] or his counsel with an exculpatory interview by a witness.” (SAP ¶ 30.)

  • Name

    CAREN CARL MANDOYAN VS ALEX VILLANUEVA

  • Case No.

    19STCP04760

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

Code section 3309.5(d)(1) whenever the court finds there has been a violation of POBRA. Mot. at 3. Tomlin asserts the court was required to render appropriate injunctive relief to prevent future similar violations of POBRA. Mot. at 4. The City asserts that the court did not find a violation of POBRA, and even if it had, injunctive relief is discretionary and not required. Opp. at 4.

  • Name

    DAVID TOMLIN VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BS173294

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

38 Files
Filed

Nov 20, 2017

Status

Judgment on the Pleadings

Judge

Hon. Mark C. Kim Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mark C. Kim

Court

Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Filed

Nov 21, 2012

Status

Appealed

Judge

Hon. Luis A. Lavin Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Luis A. Lavin

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Other Writ /Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)

Filed

Jan 28, 2010

Status

Judgment (Other)

Judge

Hon. James C. Chalfant Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for James C. Chalfant

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Filed

Jul 30, 2007

Status

Relief Denied

Judge

Hon. James C. Chalfant Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for James C. Chalfant

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Filed

Feb 18, 2000

Status

Judgment (Other)

Judge

Hon. Dzintra Janavs Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Dzintra Janavs

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

View More Dockets
Previous Section

Doc thumbnail Section 3309.

Next Section

Doc thumbnail Section 3310.

View Latest Documents

preview-icon Preview

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division South District, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse, Department S27 NC061506 February 22, 2019 LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ET AL 8:30 AM VS ROBERT LUNA Judge: Honorable Mark C. Kim CSR: None Judicial Assistant: B. Viola …

Case Filed

Nov 20, 2017

Case Status

Judgment on the Pleading 02/26/2019

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Feb 22, 2019

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Mark C. Kim Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mark C. Kim
preview-icon 10 pages

1 JAMES A. LASSART(SBN 40913) ADRIAN G. DRISCOLL(SBN 95468) 2 MURPIIY PARSON IlRADL~Y & I'~~N~Y 88 Kearny Street, lOt~' Floor ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, CA 94108 F I L E D Telephone: (415)788-1900 …

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jun 28, 2019

Category

OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS

Judge Hon. Samuel K. Feng Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Samuel K. Feng
preview-icon Preview

a , Soa sevigne® Past a2 fetta @ FILED RICHARDA. LEVINE, ESQ. [SBN: 91671] 2 JACOBA. KALINSKI, ESQ. [SBN: 233709] ‘County …

Case Filed

Aug 13, 2018

Case Status

Pending

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Aug 13, 2018

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Mary H. Strobel Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mary H. Strobel
preview-icon Preview

et e oat Soest ORL JACOB A. KALINSKI, ESQ. [SBN: 233709] 2 RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC 1428 2™ Street, Suite 200 rnia Santa Monica, CA 90401 Sup erior Court of Califo …

Case Filed

Aug 07, 2018

Case Status

Court Finding - After Court Trial 02/24/2020

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Aug 07, 2018

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Mary H. Strobel Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mary H. Strobel
preview-icon Preview

@ @ Dept. eho Assigned RICHARD A. LEVINE, ESQ. [SBN: 91671] Sree JACOB A. KALINSKI, ESQ. [SBN: 233709] RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC 1428 2" Street, Suite 200 Fi Sup @rior Court of California Santa Monica, CA 90401 …

Case Filed

Jul 13, 2018

Case Status

Court Finding - (Denied) 11/04/2020

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Jul 13, 2018

Category

Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Mary H. Strobel Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mary H. Strobel
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope