The following is a list of published decisions handled by the Appellate Department of
Lawrence Beach Allen & Choy.
Aguilera v.
Baca
top
394 F.Supp.2d 1203 (Cal. C.D. 2005).
During an internal investigation by the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department into allegations of a police assault,
several Deputies were ordered to remain at work for
questioning after their shifts ended. The Deputies were
thereafter taken off patrol duty and reassigned, even though
no criminal charges were filed. The Deputies subsequently
filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles claiming
civil rights violations. In a published opinion, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor
of the County, finding that the Deputies were not “seized”
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because they were
given access to their weapons, allowed to converse freely,
and only intermittently supervised. Further, the Deputies
were not compelled to testify in any proceedings and, in
fact, refused to do so. Distinguishing the questioning of
employees in an employment context from situations involving
police custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, the
Court of Appeals concluded that even if the Deputies’ civil
rights may have been implicated, qualified immunity
protected the County’s conduct.
------------------------------------------------------
Alexander
v. County of Los Angeles
top
(9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1315
Police officers entitled to qualified immunity from liability for temporary detention of robbery suspects where suspects
generally matched description of robbers and suspects were held at gunpoint and handcuffed for 45 to 60 minutes while witnesses brought to the scene.
------------------------------------------------------
Berry v. Baca
top
(9th Cir. 2004) 379 F.3d 764
A plaintiff alleging over-detention need not prove that an
individual policy is unconstitutional. He may base his claim
against the entity on the basis that lawful policies are
implemented in a fashion that rises to the level of deliberate
indifference.
------------------------------------------------------
Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach
top
(9th Cir. 2003) 329 F.3d 723
When addressing qualified immunity in the context of an
arrest, the arrest will be upheld if probable cause exists to
support the arrest for an offense that is not denominated as
the reason for the arrest by the arresting officer. This is
because the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on the
objective question of whether a reasonable officer could have
concluded probable cause existed.
------------------------------------------------------
Binkley
v. City of Long Beach
top
(1993) 16 Cal.App. 4th 1795
Constitutional due process requires post-dismissal name-clearing hearing for chief of police, despite being an “at
will” employee.
------------------------------------------------------
Blair v. City of Pomona
top
(9th Cir. 2000) 206 F.3d 938
Plaintiff police officer who allegedly encouraged fellow
officer to report misconduct in the Department claimed
retaliation by fellow officers in violation of his First
Amendment rights. Ninth Circuit reversed summary
judgment in favor of City, holding that plaintiff had
presented sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial on the
issue of whether the City was
deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's right to inform his
supervisors of misconduct and that a custom or policy of the
Department caused a violation of his First Amendment rights.
------------------------------------------------------
Bradbury
v. Superior Court of Ventura County
top
(1996) 49 Cal.App. 4th 1108)
Governmental units and their employees, when speaking on matters of public concern, are entitled to the same free speech
protections as are private citizens.
------------------------------------------------------
Carlo
v. City of Chino
top
(9th Cir. 1997) 105 F.3d 493
State-created right of arrestee to three telephone calls constitutes a liberty interest safeguarded by procedural due
process.
------------------------------------------------------
Carrisales
v. Department of Corrections
top
(1998) 77 Cal.Rptr. 2d 517
Imposition of personal liability for harassment under California Fair Employment & Housing Act requires existence of
employer/employee relationship.
------------------------------------------------------
Ceballos v. Garcetti top
(9th Cir. 2004) 361 F.3d 1168
A public employee’s purely job-related speech, expressed
strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, is protected
under the First Amendment and can be the basis for a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the speech touches on a matter of
public concern. [reversed in Garcetti v. Ceballos,
126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006); see
below]
------------------------------------------------------
Choate v. County of Orange
top
(2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 312
Civil rights plaintiff who recovered only $3,380 in
compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages was not
entitled to an award of attorney fees due to his
"extremely limited success." Plaintiff also
not entitled to a Monell trial against the public entity since
plaintiff was fully compensated in first phase of trial and
entity had agreed to pay the judgment.
------------------------------------------------------
City
of Angels v. Fukuda top
(1999) 20 Cal. 4th 805
When a trial court reviews a final administrative decision that substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the trial
court exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence, however, the trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the administrative decision bears the
burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.
------------------------------------------------------
Cooley v. Superior Court
top
(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039
FSRL represented the District Attorney of Los Angeles County
in the civil suit arising from the tragic death of ten
individuals who were run down at the Santa Monica Farmer’s
Market by and elderly motorist. Counsel for plaintiffs
subpoenaed from the District Attorney documents in its
possession but not having been prepared by the District
Attorney. The District attorney objected to production but was
ordered by the Superior Court to produce the documents. The
Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the District Attorney
was not the “custodian” of the records since the documents had
been generated elsewhere and, consequently, the District
Attorney could not execute an affidavit stating that the
documents had been generated in the ordinary course of
business as required by Evidence Code §1561.
------------------------------------------------------
County of Los Angeles v. Superior
Court (Axelrad) top
(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 98 Cal.Rptr. 2d
564.
A court hearing a request for public records under the
California Public Records Act should be made aware of any
pertinent prior discovery rulings and is bound by such rulings
if the elements of collateral estoppel are present.
------------------------------------------------------
County
of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Peters)
top
(1998) 68 Cal.App. 4th 1166
The Sheriff, when determining whether to release a person from the County Jail, is performing a state law enforcement
function as a state officer; consequently, the County cannot be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his acts or omissions.
------------------------------------------------------
County of Los Angeles v. Superior
Court (Valentin) top
(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 212
A plaintiff claiming false arrest against a
public entity or employee is entitled to post-arraignment
damages only if injury is caused by pre-arraignment conduct.
------------------------------------------------------
County of Orange v. Superior Court;
Feilong Wu top
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759
The Fourth Appellate District granted the
County's Petition for Writ of Mandate directing the trial
court to vacate its order compelling the production of the
contents of the Sheriff Department's investigative file
pertaining to an ongoing homicide investigation of the murder
of plaintiffs' child. Plaintiffs were suspects in the
investigation and brought suit against the County for
defamation. The Court concluded that the public interest
in solving the murder and bringing the perpetrator(s) to
justice outweighed plaintiffs' interest in obtaining the
discovery sought.
------------------------------------------------------
County
of Orange v. The Superior Court for the County of San Francisco
top
(1999) 73 Cal.App. 4th 1189
Plaintiff who was arrested in San Francisco on a recalled Orange County bench
warrant and transported to Orange County brought suit in San Francisco alleging negligence and false imprisonment. Court held that CCP §394 required San Francisco Superior Court to transfer venue
to Orange County.
------------------------------------------------------
Del
Rio v. Jetton top
(1997) 55 Cal.App. 4th 30
Police officers wrongfully sued under federal Civil Rights Act entitled to proceed with malicious prosecution suit against
plaintiff’s lawyers notwithstanding fee-shifting provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
------------------------------------------------------
Forrett
v. Richardson
top
(9th Cir. 1997) 112 F.3d 416
Officers justified in using deadly force and not required to show the suspect posed immediate threat of serious harm to
them, where suspect had already seriously injured citizen and had fled into residential area.
------------------------------------------------------
Fowler
v. Block
top
(C.D.Cal. 1998) 2 F.Supp. 2d 1268
Delay of 24 to 48 hours to process acquitted inmate out of large urban jail not unreasonable as a matter of law.
------------------------------------------------------
Fukuda
v. City of Angels Camp top
(1998) 63 Cal.App. 4th
1426
In cases involving fundamental, vested rights in which the trial court exercises its independent judgment on the evidence
[administrative mandamus], the burden of proving grounds for termination is on the administrative entity.
------------------------------------------------------
Gabbert
v. Conn top
(9th Cir. 1997) 131 F.3d 793
In suit brought by an attorney who was searched while his client was testifying nearby before a grand jury, court held that
detective who served search warrant entitled to qualified immunity and special master entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
------------------------------------------------------
Garcetti
v. Ceballos top
126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006)
While public employees enjoy First Amendment protection when
they speak “as citizens” regarding matters of public
concern, the First Amendment does not protect public
employee speech expressed pursuant to official job duties,
and therefore, such job-related speech does not give rise to
an actionable First Amendment claim.
------------------------------------------------------
Garcia
v. Whitehead top
(C.D.Cal.
1997) 961 F.Supp. 230
California’s survivorship statute is inconsistent with the purposes of § 1983 because it excludes damages for pain and
suffering of the decedent.
------------------------------------------------------
Greenstreet
v. County of San Bernardino top
(9th Cir. 1994) 41 F.3d 1306
Search warrant invalid where the supporting affidavit does not establish connection between the suspect’s criminal
activities and the home in question.
------------------------------------------------------
Hackett
v. Superior Court top
(1993) 13 Cal.App. 4th 96
Personal information regarding police officer including home address, telephone number, place of birth, driver’s license
number, and educational background held privileged and not subject to disclosure in civil proceeding.
------------------------------------------------------
Harris
v. Marhoefer top
(9th Cir. 1994) 24 F.3d 16
A plaintiff’s award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is reduced to reflect limited success where he prevails
on only selected theories of civil rights complaint against certain defendants.
------------------------------------------------------
Henriksen
v. City of Rialto top
(1993) 20 Cal.App. 4th 1612
Off-duty police officer who accidentally shoots another while socializing not within course and scope of employment
notwithstanding fact that employer requires officer to have loaded weapon on person at all times.
------------------------------------------------------
Hernandez
v. City of El Monte top
(9th Cir. 1998) 138 F.3d 393
Court applies “abuse of discretion” standard of review, and the Henderson five-part test, to court-ordered
dismissal for judge shopping.
------------------------------------------------------
Hernandez
v. City of Pomona top
(1996) 49 Cal.App. 4th 1492
The parents of young men with gang affiliations sued the county, city and police detectives for the wrongful death of their
son, alleging that the detectives had a duty to protect him from gang retaliation after he provided incriminating evidence against them. Court held detectives owed no duty.
------------------------------------------------------
Hudson
v. Public Employees-Retirement System top
(1997) 59 Cal.App. 4th 1310
Public Employees’ Retirement System properly denied city employees’ attempt to include employment benefit conversions
as “compensation” for purposes of calculating retirement benefits.
------------------------------------------------------
Liston
v. County of Riverside top
(9th Cir. 1997) 120 F.3d 965
Suit brought by recent purchasers of a home which was searched pursuant to investigation of previous owner.
Presence of “For Sale” sign was a material fact which should have been included in the warrant application.
------------------------------------------------------
Mendoza
v. Block top
(9th Cir. 1994) 27 F.3d 1357
Use of police dog to locate and apprehend bank robbery suspect objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
------------------------------------------------------
Murdock
v. Stout top
(9th Cir. 1995) 54 F.3d 1437
Officers acted reasonably in entering residence and briefly detaining and searching resident without a warrant.
Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry.
------------------------------------------------------
Newman v. County of Orange
top
(9th Cir. 2006) 457 F.3d 991, 995
Plaintiff was charged with violation of Penal Code §148 after
he sprayed a motorcycle officer with rocks and dirt while
leaving the scene where he had been ticketed for speeding.
Plaintiff went to trial, was acquitted and sued the officer
under 42 U.SC. §1983 for malicious prosecution, among other
things. Under federal law, there is a rebuttable presumption
that the prosecutor exercises independent judgment when
criminal charges are filed. The Ninth Circuit held that a
plaintiff’s account of the incident in question, by itself,
does not overcome the presumption of independent judgment. The
presumption “protects the officers unless such evidence shows
that officers interfered with the prosecutor’s judgment in
some way, by omitting relevant information, by including false
information, or by pressuring the prosecutor to file charges.
A suspect’s account of the incident, by itself, is unlikely to
influence a prosecutor’s decision, and thus, it cannot, by
itself, serve as evidence that officers interfered with the
prosecutor’s decision.” The ruling precludes the plaintiff
from offering at trial evidence of the prosecution and from
recovering as damages attorneys fees incurred in defending
himself in the criminal proceeding.
------------------------------------------------------
Perkins
v. City of West Covina top
(9th Cir. 1997) 113 F.3d 1004
Police officers entitled to qualified immunity with regard to seizure of large amount of cash in light of evidence that
suspect had been involved in drug-related activities. Due process holding reversed by United States Supreme Court in West Covina, City v. Perkins, 119
S.Ct. 678 (1999) see infra.
------------------------------------------------------
Quintanilla
v. City of Downey top
(9th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 353
Use of police dog to apprehend suspect by biting does not violate Fourth Amendment. Without
an unconstitutional use of excessive force, plaintiff could not challenge the City’s policy of using police dogs. Deadly force jury instruction unwarranted based upon the plaintiff’s injuries and the dog’s training.
------------------------------------------------------
Real
v. Compton top
(1999) 73 Cal.App. 4th 1407
Police officer who suffered a work-related knee injury and received a 42% permanent disability rating after filing a
worker’s compensation claim was involuntarily retired from the Compton Police Department based upon his inability to perform the essential functions of a patrol officer. Retired officer sued the
City under the Americans with Disabilities Act claiming that he was regarded or perceived as having a disability when, in fact, he had been satisfactorily performing as a police officer. The Court
of Appeal held that plaintiff failed to satisfy the threshold requirement that he was a disabled individual entitled to the protections of the ADA in that the evidence did not sufficiently show that “he was regarded as precluded from a
broad class of jobs, such as the law enforcement field in general.” The fact that the City perceived that the plaintiff was unable to perform the functions of a patrol officer for the Compton
Police Department did not establish that plaintiff was regarded as being precluded from a broad class of jobs.
------------------------------------------------------
Shively v. Bozanich
top
80 P.3d 676, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576, 3 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,050,
2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,909, Cal., Dec 22, 2003
In a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court held that the
accrual of a cause of action for defamation was not delayed or
otherwise tolled by the so-called discovery rule, where the
alleged defamatory statements were republished in a mass media
forum. Reversing the Los Angeles-based 2nd District Court of
Appeal, the justices refused to give the plaintiff the benefit
of the discovery rule, which tolls the statute of limitations
in cases in which plaintiffs do not immediately learn that
they have been wronged. Plaintiff was a witness in the O.J.
Simpson murder case who sued her former boyfriend and a Los
Angeles Deputy District Attorney for making alleged false
statements that she was a "felony probationer," and also
brought libel and slander claims against the author and
publisher of a book that repeated those statements. Her
lawsuit, filed in October 1997, however, was not filed until
one year and one day after the book containing the alleged
defamatory statements were first made available for sale in
California. The trial court dismissed the suit pursuant to the
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that
plaintiff missed the one-year deadline, notwithstanding
plaintiff's declaration that she had not read the book and
discovered the alleged defamatory statements until December
1996. The 2nd District, however, reinstated the suit. Chief
Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the high court, reversed
the appellate court decision, concluding that the one-year
deadline for filing a suit began to run on "the date the book
was first generally distributed to the public, regardless of
the date on which plaintiff actually learned of the existence
of the book and read its contents."
The trial court dismissed plaintiff's action, holding that
plaintiff failed to bring her action before the statute of
limitations expired. Plaintiff appealed, claiming that the
trial court erred in failing to apply the discovery rule to
toll the statute of limitations even when the alleged
defamatory statement was republished in a mass media
publication. The court reversed, holding that the trial court
erred in failing to apply the discovery rule to toll the
statute of limitations, because the discovery rule applied in
plaintiff's defamation action even when defendants' alleged
defamatory statement was republished in a mass media
publication.
------------------------------------------------------
Sorchini v. City of Covina
top
(9th Cir. 2001) 250 F.3d 706
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3(b) does not permit
the citation of an unpublished disposition for the purpose of
providing "notice" to the court of the existence or
absence of legal precedent. Unpublished dispositions are
neither persuasive nor controlling authority, and the limited
exceptions to the noncitation rule contained in section (b)
are not intended to change that.
------------------------------------------------------
Streit v. County of Los Angeles
top
(9th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d 552
Sheriff acts on behalf of the County, not the State, when
processing inmates for release from the county jail.
------------------------------------------------------
Susag v. City of Lake Forest
top
(2002) 94 Cal.App. 4th 1401
A person convicted of resisting or obstructing a peace officer
under California Penal Code §148 may not maintain an action
for state law battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress and false arrest unless the conviction has been set
aside through appeal or other post conviction proceeding.
------------------------------------------------------
Thompson v. County
of Los Angeles
top
(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 154
(1) Court properly denied a deadly force jury instruction and
correctly instructed the jury that the use of a trained police
dog to find and bite a hiding criminal suspect is to be
analyzed under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard.
(2) Special counsel Judge Kolts who reviewed allegations of
excessive force against the Sheriff's Department for the
County Board of Supervisors was not authorized to make party
admissions on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department and his
report was properly excluded from trial. (3) The probative
value of evidence relating to bites inflicted by dog of a
handler who was not a defendant in this case, was outweighed
by its potential for prejudice; and absent violation of
suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, there was no basis for
state civil rights claim.
------------------------------------------------------
Trafficschoolonline Inc. v. Superior Court (Ohlrich)
top
(2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 222
Article VI, section 10 of the state Constitution and Code of Civil Procedure
section 1085, subdivision (a) vest power in the superior court to order an
executive officer of the court to comply with a legal obligation or to
direct the performance of an act which the law requires. Since the court has
subject matter jurisdiction, the court cannot order transfer to the Court of
Appeal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396.
------------------------------------------------------
Truong
v. Orange County Sheriff's Department top
(2005) 129 Cal. App.4th 1423
Plaintiff’s federal and state claims for excessive force
arising from fight with jail deputies dismissed under Heck
doctrine in light of plaintiff’s plea of guilty to one count
of resisting the exercise of the lawful duty of a peace
officer under Penal Code §148.
------------------------------------------------------
Venegas v. County
of Los Angeles top
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 820
A California sheriff acts as a state agent when performing law
enforcement functions. Consequently, a sheriff and the County
in which he serves are absolutely immune from liability under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claims brought under California Code of
Civil Procedure § 52.1 for unreasonable search and seizure do
not require a showing that the defendant acted with
discriminatory intent.
------------------------------------------------------
Walker v. Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transp. Authority
top
(2004) 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 848
Following a jury trial defense verdict in a wrongful
termination/whistle blower case, the plaintiff appealed from
the order denying a motion for new trial. The Court held that
an order denying a new trial is not an appealable order and
the appeal could not be saved through the fiction of deeming
it to
be an appeal from the judgment. Her notice of appeal, "which
purported to take an appeal from the order denying a new trial
was so specific in its reference to that order and to the date
of its entry, that it cannot be given any effect as an appeal
from the judgment...."
------------------------------------------------------
Washington
v. Skystone-Eagle Lambert
top
(9th Cir. 1996) 98 F.3d 1181
Officers’ detention of individuals was sufficiently intrusive to constitute an arrest. Absent probable cause, the use of three other officers, a police dog, spotlight and drawn weapons was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
------------------------------------------------------
City of
West Covina, City v. Perkins top
(1999) 525 U.S. 234
When the police seize property for a criminal investigation, pursuant to a search warrant, due process does not require
them to provide the owner with notice of available state law remedies.
|
