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