Government Liability Update

Public Entity Asserting Lack of Judicial Exhaustion Must Prove Elements

In Y.K.A. v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pomona, published on May 27, 2009, the Sixth DCA reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant agency.  The Agency had obtained summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had sued for violation of due process without exhausting judicial remedies -- i.e., petitioning for a writ of administrative mandamus.  The appellate court ruled that the agency had the obligation of establishing the elements of the judicial exhaustion defense:  That the plaintiff had available an administrative remedy that afforded a quasi-judicial hearing; and that the petitioner failed to pursue it through an administrative mandamus petition.

California Supreme Court: Finding That Police Shooting Is "Reasonable" in Federal Civil Rights Action Bars Negligent Shooting Cause of Action

In Hernandez v. City of Pomona, decided today, the California Supreme Court ruled that a federal court and jury's finding in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case that a police shooting of a suspect after a pursuit was reasonable collaterally estops the plaintiffs in that case from suing the police for negligently deciding to shoot the suspect.  The court further held that the finding did not necessarily bar a theory that the officers negligently created the situation that led to the shooting.  Under the facts of the case, however, the court concluded such a cause of action would not be viable.

School Districts May Owe Duty to Children Getting Off School Bus

In Eric M. v. Cajon Valley Union Sch. Dist., published May 27, 2009, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, held that a school district that adopted a transportation plan for students might owe a duty of care under Education Code 44808 to a six-year-old who exited a school bus -- because he thought he saw his father's car at the school yard to pick him up -- and was hit by a car.  Whether a duty existed, and whether it was breached, depended on disputed facts.  The court therefore reversed summary adjudication for the school district.

State Cannot Bar Suits under Federal Civil Rights Statute

In Haywood v. Drown, published on May 26, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New York State statute that divested state courts of jurisdiction over 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suits brought by prisoners against state correctional officers.  The statute limited prisoners who sued in state court to a court of limited jurisdiction that could not award attorney fees or punitive damages.  The Supreme Court held that the Supremecy Clause requires state courts to entertain section 1983 suits unless Congress expressly provides otherwise. 

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

In its May 26, 2009 decision in Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court ruled that California voters had the power to amend the state constitution to provide that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Opponents of Proposition 8 had argued that the measure was not just an amendment to the constitution (which can be accomplished by initiative), but a revision of the constitution (which cannot).  The Supreme Court rejected this argument.  It did, however, uphold the same-sex marriages carried out in California under Proposition 8.

Patronage Doctrine Applies to Political Loyalty but Not Personal Loyalty

The patronage doctrine provides that a fired public employee cannot sue the employer for First Amendment retaliation arising out of the termination if the employee was terminated based on political loyalty to an opposition.  In Nichols v. Dancer, published today, the Ninth Circuit declined to extend the doctrine to protect an employer who terminates an employee for lack of personal loyalty to the employer.

Implausible and Conclusory Allegations of Officials' Liability Do Not State Claim under Federal Law

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, decided today, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the federal pleading standards it set forth in Bell v. Twombly (an antitrust case) to a Bivens suit that alleged the former Attorney General of the United States and the head of the FBI were liable for treatment of 9/11 detainees in federal prison; and accused them of discrimination based on nationality. The Bell standard only presumes factual allegations in a complaint to be true (for purposes of deciding whether the complaint states a claim) if the facts alleged are plausible. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint failed to state a claim against the AG and FBI head because its conclusory allegations failed to pass the threshhold from "conceivable" to "plausible."

Public Employee Must Present Claim Before Pursuing Writ for Reimbursement of Defense Costs

In Sparks v. County of Kern, published April 30, 2009, the court ruled that a public employee who was denied a defense by his employer, and who prevailed in the action, had to present a claim for damages before pursuing a writ of mandate against the employer for reimbursement of his attorney fees and costs for his defense.

There is a split in authority on whether a petitioner must present a claim before pursuing a writ for a specific amount of money to which the petitioner claims entitlement.  The more recent cases hold that a claim is required, unless the petitioner is seeking reimbursement for property that was destroyed while in the entity's custody.  This case follows that trend.

The court also held that a letter the employee sent to the employer about the case that did not mention the employee's requested defense costs did not substantially comply with the claims requirements; and could not be deemed a "claim as presented" that would require the employer to send a notice of insufficiency.