Plaintiff baseball club appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Orange Co

Posted by Constance Sanchez on March 30th, 2021

Plaintiff baseball club appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), granting summary judgment to defendant manager of the City of Anaheim in plaintiff's suit that sought to recover attorneys' fees plaintiff had incurred as a result of a prior action against defendant's employer on the theory that defendant's fraudulent conduct had forced them to file the prior action.

Plaintiff baseball club contended that it was entitled to recover attorneys' fees incurred from a prior action against the City of Anaheim because defendant manager of the City of Anaheim had defrauded plaintiff by misrepresenting the terms of lease agreements between the parties. The trial court found in favor of defendant. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the "tort of another" doctrine permitted an award of attorneys' fees because plaintiff was forced to bring an action against the City of Anaheim as a result of defendant's misrepresentations. The court rejected plaintiff's contentions, finding that the doctrine did not apply because plaintiff never offered evidence to show that defendant was not acting on behalf of the city. The court held defendant was protected from liability under Cal. Gov't Code § 822.2 because defendant's declaration that he was acting in the scope of his employment was uncontradicted. The court ruled that there was no triable issue of fact under the fraud claim because plaintiff's business sophistication precluded a finding that its reliance upon defendant's statements was justified. Accordingly, the court affirmed the holding of the trial court.

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant manager of the City of Anaheim. The court held that plaintiff baseball club was not entitled to attorneys' fees because the "tort of another" doctrine did not apply, because defendant was protected by governmental immunity, and because plaintiff's reliance on defendant's statements was not justified due to plaintiff's business sophistication.

Plaintiffs, the family of a suspect who was killed during a police chase, sued defendants, the officers and their employers. A federal court entered judgment for defendants following trial on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and dismissed a state law wrongful death claim. The state trial court entered judgment for defendants. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven (California) reversed, and defendants sought further review.

The court held that the federal proceedings collaterally estopped plaintiffs from recovering on the theory that the officers acted negligently in using deadly force. In the federal action, the issue of whether the officers exercised reasonable care was raised, submitted for decision, and actually decided in resolving the san diego california minimum wage 1983 claim. The negligence issue in the wrongful death claim was precisely the issue resolved by the conclusion that the officers' conduct was objectively reasonable. The court rejected the argument that the federal and state standards of reasonableness differed, either as to the requisite mental state or whether a balancing of competing interests was required. The court also held that liability could not be based on the officers' alleged preshooting negligence. An officer had probable cause to arrest the suspect when, during a proper traffic stop, he moved into the driver's seat and drove off. Liability could not be based on the execution of the pursuit decision. The officers could not be held liable based on the manner in which they conducted the vehicular pursuit, on chasing the suspect into a darkened parking lot; or on the use and release of a vicious dog.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded the matter with directions to reinstate the trial court's judgment.