Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV01601, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01601, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01601 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, et al., Case No. 24SMCV01601

Hearing date: August 8, 2024

Defendant Regents of University of California’s Demurrer

Hamilton sues the Regents of the University of California and others, alleging false arrest after a missing cell phone, wallet and keys were found among his belongings. Regents demur to the first three causes of action, arguing immunity as a matter of law and failure to plead sufficient facts.

General Immunity

Regents generally demur to the entire complaint on the grounds of immunity as a matter of law as to the first three causes of action under Gov. Codes §§821.6, 820.4, 815.2(b) and 815.

A public entity is not liable for an injury arising from an act or omission of the entity, a public employee, or any other person except as provided by statute. Gov. Code §815. A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would have given rise to a cause of action against that employee. Gov. Code §815.2(a).

Per Penal Code section 847, “[t]here shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace office or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest…[when] (1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.” Pen. Code §847(b)(1). The presence or absence of probable cause is a question of law for the court. King v. Andersen (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 606, 609.

Regents argue probable cause is a question of law because the facts are undisputed. However, the complaint disputes that there was probable cause for the arrest. The factual issue of whether there was probable cause for the arrest cannot be determined on demurrer, where the court must take all allegations as true. People v. Flores (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 617.

False Imprisonment /False Arrest and Negligence

Regents contend the second and third causes of action fail to provide a statutory basis. However, as above, Regents can be liable if their employee is liable under Gov. Code §815.2(a). Regents also argue plaintiff’s claims are barred under Gov. Code §821.6.

Government Code section 821.6 provides “[a] public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.” Govt. Code, §821.6; see Kayfetz v. State of California (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 491, 496. “This provision is intended to protect government employees from “claims of injury based on tortious or wrongful prosecution.” See Leon v. County of Riverside (2023) 14 Cal.5th 910, 921-922. The immunity is “narrow” and “applies only if the conduct that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries was the institution or prosecution of an official proceeding.” Id. at 922. If the employee is immune from liability, section 815.2 also immunizes the public entity.” Kayfetz, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at 496. “[T]he test of immunity is causal connection, not time of occurrence.” Cappuccio, Inc. v. Harmon (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1496, 1498.

Regents argue Section 821.6 applies because the campus security officers were conducting a police investigation, and police investigations are an essential precondition to the institution and prosecution of judicial proceedings, citing Leon, supra. However, in Leon, the court rejected this argument. Leon, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 919.

Hamilton's claims do not stem from prosecution of an official proceeding against him. In fact, there are no official proceedings pending against Hamilton. Instead, they arise from defendant’s conduct during the investigation and plaintiff’s subsequent arrest. As per Leon, “the two things are not the same and cannot plausibly be treated as though they were.” Leon, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 923. Gov. Code §821.6 does not apply.

Regents demur to the false imprisonment claim for failing to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Regents argue the second cause of action fails to allege that the arrest was without privilege. The Court disagrees.

The elements of the tort of false arrest are 1) defendant arrested plaintiff without a warrant, 2) harm, and 3) defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Carcamo v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dep’t. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 608, 616.

Hamilton alleges campus security personnel entered the gym to locate a missing cellphone using its tracking signal. Compl. ¶8. The signal led them to plaintiff's backpack, where they found the missing cellphone, a wallet and a keyholder belonging to someone else. Id. The complaint alleges the cause of action because it pleads Hamilton was arrested and transported to LA County Inmate Reception Center for grand theft. Id. ¶13.

Hamilton further alleges the arresting officers did not have reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful because both Hamilton and Shaw explained the items were in the wrong backpack. Id. ¶¶ 9-11, 14. Harm and causation are properly alleged because Hamilton alleges as a direct result, he suffered physical injury, humiliation and other damages; as such, he claims he is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. Id. ¶28. The complaint pleads enough facts at the pleadings stage.

As for the third cause of action, Regents argues its demurrer should be sustained because of immunity. However as explained above, none of the immunity arguments apply in this context. OVERRULED.

Violation of the Bane Act

Finally, Regents demur to the cause of action for violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code 52.1) for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant contends the complaint fails to allege any of the officers’ conduct was egregious or that they used threats, intimidation, or coercion, and fails to allege any defendant injured plaintiff for the specific purpose of preventing him from exercising his rights or for the purpose of infringing on his rights. The court agrees.

The Bane Act allows an individual to sue for damages if a person “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals 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 . . .” Civ. Code §52.1(b). “‘The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e. ‘threat[], intimidation or coercion’), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something he or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was not required to do under the law.’ [Citation.]” King v. State of California (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 265, 294. “[C]onclusory allegations of ‘forcible’ and ‘coercive’ interference with plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are inadequate to state a cause of action for a violation of section 52.1. Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 69. “ ‘[A] wrongful arrest and detention, without more, cannot constitute ‘force, intimidation, or coercion’ for purposes of section 52.1.’ ” Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 947, 960.

The complaint alleges defendant violated Hamilton’s rights under Article 1, Section 7 of the California and U.S. Constitution by detaining and arresting him without probable cause or a warrant after he exercised his legal rights while speaking with the officers. Compl. ¶20. The complaint alleges they detained and arrested him without probable cause. Id. “[C]onclusory allegations of ‘forcible’ and ‘coercive’ interference with plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are inadequate to state a cause of action for a violation of section 52.1. Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 69. “‘[A] wrongful arrest and detention, without more, cannot constitute ‘force, intimidation, or coercion’ for purposes of section 52.1.’ ” Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 947, 960.

This fails to allege excessive force on the part of defendants or false arrest and thus fails to allege that defendant interfered with plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights by threatening or committing violent acts. SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.