Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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.
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.
IVAN MORAN VS. CITY OF PASADENA, ET AL
EC064281
Apr 07, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
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.
IVAN MORAN VS. CITY OF PASADENA, ET AL
EC064281
Jul 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Relief under Gov’t Code section 3309.5 is denied.
ERIC MOREJON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BS174155
Oct 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.)
CAREN CARL MANDOYAN VS ALEX VILLANUEVA
19STCP04760
Mar 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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.
DAVID TOMLIN VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL
BS173294
May 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Nov 20, 2017
Judgment on the Pleadings
Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
Nov 21, 2012
Appealed
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Other Writ /Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)
Jan 28, 2010
Judgment (Other)
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
Jul 30, 2007
Relief Denied
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
Feb 18, 2000
Judgment (Other)
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
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 …
Los Angeles County, CA
Feb 22, 2019
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
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 …
Jun 04, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Jun 28, 2019
OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS
a , Soa sevigne® Past a2 fetta @ FILED RICHARDA. LEVINE, ESQ. [SBN: 91671] 2 JACOBA. KALINSKI, ESQ. [SBN: 233709] ‘County …
Los Angeles County, CA
Aug 13, 2018
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
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 …
Aug 07, 2018
Court Finding - After Court Trial 02/24/2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Aug 07, 2018
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
@ @ 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 …
Los Angeles County, CA
Jul 13, 2018
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.