Practice Leader: Kevin M. Osterberg
Attorneys: View Attorneys in this PracticeToday, the ability to preserve and improve fiscal health is even more critical for public entities. With this in mind, Haight Brown & Bonesteel represents public entities in matters pending before both the state and federal courts. We represent and have extensive knowledge of the unique issues facing cities, fire departments, police departments, fire districts, water districts, school districts and other local agencies.
Our attorneys handle litigation matters related to claims of:
Representative Matters
Appellate Court Reverses $6.2 Million Verdict Against City of Los Angeles
Lee v. City of Los Angeles
February 18, 2010
The Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District reversed and remanded a $6.2 million judgment against the City of Los Angeles in a discrimination lawsuit filed by African-American lesbian firefighter, Brenda Lee. The reversal of the judgment also wiped out the $600,000 attorney fee award to plaintiff's counsel.
Almost all of the damages awarded to plaintiff were pursuant to her claim that she was wrongfully terminated from her job as a firefighter, but plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies as to that claim. She filed only one charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), a year prior to her termination, and in that DFEH charge, plaintiff alleged harassment, discrimination and retaliation by certain named defendants.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the City that plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her termination is a jurisdictional bar to a civil suit on that claim.
Defense Verdict for Orange County Fire Authority
Hyatt v. Orange County Fire Authority
February 2009
Verdict for the defense in an employment lawsuit brought by plaintiff, a fire communication dispatcher. This case is currently pending before the Court of Appeal of the Fourth Appellate District.
Plaintiff was a below average employee who often failed to follow rules and frequently made mistakes, including sending emergency 911 responders to incorrect locations. Plaintiff fell ill in 2000, and the Orange County Fire Authority accommodated her resultant disability by transferring her to a non-emergency job position. However, plaintiff’s performance remained deficient and worsened over time. Plaintiff underwent a fitness for duty examination and the Fire Authority attempted to further accommodate her. Instead, plaintiff filed for retirement and brought a lawsuit claiming harassment, retaliation, wrongful discharge and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in fair dealing pursuant to Government Code Section 12940.
Appellate Court Confirms Dismissal of Orange County Fire Authority
Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 83
March 29, 2007
The Court of Appeal of the Fourth Appellate District confirmed the dismissal of Orange County Fire Authority and City of Westminster based on the statute of limitations in a paramedic gross negligence lawsuit filed by plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.
Plaintiff had been drinking and was assaulted. Officers from Westminster’s police department arrived at the scene and detained plaintiff. Plaintiff was examined by paramedics from Orange County Fire Authority but refused treatment. Plaintiff was later driven home by police where he went to sleep and fell into a coma from which he never awakened. It was later determined that plaintiff had sustained a subdural hematoma.
Plaintiff, through his guardian ad litem, dismissed his original complaint without prejudice, which named the tortfeasor and Does. Plaintiff later petitioned the trial court for relief from the claims presentation requirements and was allowed to file an amended complaint naming the public entities. Orange County Fire Authority and City of Westminster brought motions for judgment on the pleadings on the applicable statute of limitations.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Grants of Orange County Fire Authority’s Motions for Summary Judgment
Tang v. Orange County Fire Authority & City of Westminster
January 23, 2004
The Orange County Fire Authority brought two motions for summary judgment that were both granted in a firefighter gross negligence and civil rights violation lawsuit brought by the parents of a deceased son who had ingested a large amount of cocaine.
Plaintiffs claimed violations of 42 USC Section 1983 alleging their deceased son's civil rights were violated by firefighter/paramedics of Orange County Fire Authority and police officers from the City of Westminster. Plaintiffs also alleged a state law claim of paramedic gross negligence against the Fire Authority defendants.
Plaintiffs called 911 after observing their son acting suspiciously in the family home. Westminster police and the Fire Authority personnel responded and after firefighter/paramedics examined plaintiff’s son, an adult, he refused transportation and treatment. Fire Authority personnel subsequently left plaintiff’s residence but Westminster police officers remained. An altercation ensued and the son was arrested. While in custody, plaintiff’s son started having seizures and the Fire Authority paramedics examined, treated, and transported him to a hospital. He was later declared brain dead and life support measures were removed.
The Fire Authority brought two motions for summary judgment, one on the state court firefighter/gross negligence claim which was granted, and a subsequent motion on plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim that the Fire Authority had a policy or practice of facilitating warrantless entries to private residences by the Westminster police. The District Court found that the Fire Authority had no policy or practice of facilitating warrantless entries, and that it was not illegal or unconstitutional for the Fire Authority to call police when responding to an emergency call reporting violent or criminal behavior. Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling on the Section 1983 claim, however, the 9th Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Appellate Court Affirms Grant of Orange County Fire Authority’s Motion of Summary Judgment
Binks v. Orange County Fire Authority Fourth Appellate District G029430
February 2003
The Court of Appeal of the Fourth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's grant of a motion of summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff, a firefighter, alleging retaliation, assault and battery, petition for writ of mandate and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Fire Authority recorded the judgment and placed a lien on plaintiff’s residence which was subsequently paid.
The Fire Authority discovered that plaintiff was conducting a private business out of a fire station and sent a letter of direction asking him to remove his private fax machine and files from the station. Plaintiff went home sick and a few days later complained of chest pain and was transported to a hospital by his own fire crew. Plaintiff later received a substandard evaluation, and filed a grievance. After a subsequent altercation, plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave pending a fitness for duty evaluation. He then filed a workers' compensation claim for stress and sought early retirement based upon an alleged stress disability which was denied.
The Fire Authority filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff’s retaliation claim lacked merit, the assault and battery claim was precluded by workers' compensation exclusivity, and the petition for writ of mandate and request for injunctive and declaratory relief were without merit since the court had no clear administrative duty to grant plaintiff such relief. The trial court granted the Fire Authority's motion and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.
Motion for Non-Suit Granted at Trial of Former Police Officer
Cross v. City of Westminster and John Nelissen
September 2002
Orange County Superior Court granted defendant’s motion for non-suit in a 42 USC Section 1983 case brought by a plaintiff alleging a former police officer, John Nelissen, forced her to have sexual relations. Defendant Nelissen also received a judgment on his cross-complaint against plaintiff. The judgment was recorded and a lien was placed on her residence which was subsequently paid.
Plaintiff alleged that former Police Officer Nelissen forced her to have sexual relations under color of authority in return for lenience in the prosecution of her boyfriend on a pending burglary charge. Unbeknownst to Nelissen, plaintiff recorded telephone conversations between herself and Nelissen, and videotaped them having sexual intercourse in Cross' home. Nelissen cross-complained against plaintiff contending she tape recorded confidential communications without his consent. The case proceeded to trial in the Orange County Superior Court and the motions for non suit brought by the City and Nelissen were granted in their entirety.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Grant of Chino Valley Independent Fire District’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Sexton v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (2001) 7 Fed. Appx. 660; U.S. App. LEXIS 5354
March 27, 2001
The Ninth Circuit confirmed the District Courts granting of Chino Valley Independent Fire District's motion for summary judgment in an employment lawsuit filed by a firefighter alleging retaliation and other wrongful motives in his lack of promotion to Fire Captain.
Plaintiff claimed violations of 42 USC Section 1983 alleging the Fire District intended to deprive him of his First Amendment right to petition the government by retaliating against him for his prior assertion of personnel disputes and grievances. The Fire District brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff’s prior claims only involved his individual personnel disputes and grievances and did not involve matters of public concern and thus, his Section 1983 claim was not legally viable. The District also argued that absent a constitutional violation, plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution and abuse of process also failed.
District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
Archambo v. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
February 2, 1999
The District Court granted Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit suit filed by a paramedic alleging he suffered from Tourette Syndrome and claiming that his termination violated the ADA and pendent state law claims for defamation, N.I.E.D., and wrongful termination.
Approximately eight months after plaintiff was hired by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as a paramedic, he was terminated because the District discovered he had previously been convicted of exposing himself in public. When plaintiff was advised of his termination, he claimed, for the first time, that he suffered from Tourette Syndrome which caused his aberrant activities leading to his arrest and conviction.
The Fire District filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff presented no evidence, medical or otherwise, to support a finding that the District had terminated him due to his alleged disability of Tourette Syndrome, that the pendent state law claims should be dismissed because they substantially predominated and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. The District Court granted the Fire Protection District's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
