Hernandez v. City of Napa et al
Filing
310
ORDER REGARDING PRE-TRIAL RULING ON NEGLIGENCE. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 6/8/2012. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
LUZ HERNANDEZ,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff,
No. C-09-2782-EDL
12
v.
ORDER REGARDING PRE-TRIAL
RULING ON NEGLIGENCE
13
THE CITY OF NAPA, et al.
14
Defendants.
15
_______________________________/
16
17
On May 31, 2012, the Court held a final pretrial conference. For the reasons stated at the
18
conference and in this Order, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim would not be
19
tried to the jury. In connection with summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that a “special
20
relationship” arose between her and Officer Bender when he responded to her 911 call, as it does
21
“when the conduct of a police officer, in a situation of dependency, results in detrimental reliance on
22
him for protection.” See Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal. 3d 18, 25 (1983). However, the
23
cases where a duty of a police officer has been found are primarily focused on situations where an
24
officer increased the risk of the type of harm that he was called on to protect against and that the
25
plaintiff ultimately suffered. Here, Officer Bender was called to Plaintiff’s home for domestic
26
violence, and there is no allegation that he increased the relevant risk of harm or that she suffered
27
any additional harm of this type due to his action or inaction. Defendants separated Plaintiff and Mr.
28
Green, he did no further physical harm to her, and the officers did not let him stay at her home.
Rather, the gravamen of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendants inflicted a new and different harm on
1
her: false arrest and jail. By contrast, the “special relationship” exception to the general rule barring
2
negligence claims against the police concerns detrimental reliance on the police to protect against
3
the same risk of harm that the police undertook to protect the civilian from, but instead the police
4
worsened that risk. See id. at 24-25 (discussing cases).
5
Further, in denying summary adjudication, the Court reasoned that, “[i]f Plaintiff is
6
successful in establishing a conspiracy between the officers and Mr. Green to arrest her in favor of
7
Mr. Green, this could be an affirmative act that increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and a breach of
8
their duty to her.” Dkt. #173 at 36. The Court thus only allowed the negligence claim to survive
9
contingent on Plaintiff ultimately proving her claim conspiracy. In other words, if Plaintiff does not
prove conspiracy, her negligence claim necessarily fails. Plaintiff indicated that a state law
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
negligence claim is advantageous to her because it is not subject to a qualified immunity defense,
12
but if the jury concludes that the federal claims fail due to that defense, Plaintiff’s negligence claim
13
also fails. Therefore, negligence is not an alternative theory of liability against Officer Bender, but
14
is redundant and cumulative because it rises and falls with her other claims (which are being fully
15
tried to a jury) and provides no alternative or additional recovery.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: June 8, 2012
_______________________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?