JONES MAYER OBTAINS DISMISSAL WHERE COUNSEL FAILS TO SERVE COMPLAINT FOR FOUR YEARS
FULLERTON, CA—On November 18, 2024, the Orange County Superior Court entered a dismissal in favor of the City of Westminster in a personal injury lawsuit based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve her complaint within three years of filing. The case originated in May of 2019 when the plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she […]
Recent Ninth Circuit Arguments Highlight the Importance of Body-Worn Cameras
On October 23, 2024, Jones Mayer Certified Appellate Specialist Scott Davenport made oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the City of Fullerton in A.R.L. v. City of Fullerton (Docket no. 23-55751). The case, which arose from a fatal officer-involved shooting in April 2020, offers an example of the importance […]
Jones Mayer Wins Sonoma County Whistleblower Case
FULLERTON, CA—Jones Mayer is pleased to announce the successful defense of the Sonoma County Sheriff and his office in an overreach attempt by the local law enforcement review board. The case, In re Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach Whistleblower Case No. 23-W-001, Sonoma Superior Court Case No. 24CV04208, was brought by the […]
Vol. 39 No. 17 BECAUSE COUNTY’S ONLINE “MUGSHOT LOOKUP,” WHICH INCLUDED DETAINEES’ PHOTOS AND PERSONAL INFORMATION, SERVED AS A PUNISHMENT, IT IMPLICATED DETAINEE’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
The Ninth Circuit, in Houston v. Maricopa,[1] concluded that an arrestee plausibly pleaded a substantive due process claim against a county based on pretrial punishment when the county posted the arrestee’s photo on its publicly accessible website, along with certain identifying personal information. Background The Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff’s Office posts photographs of arrestees on […]
Vol. 39 No. 16 PERSONAL TEXT MESSAGES FROM A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE REGARDING A RACIST IMAGE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MATTER OF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC CONCERN AND THEREFORE WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
In Adams v. Cnty. of Sacramento,[1] a First Amendment retaliation case brought by a former Chief of Police, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s private text messages forwarding racist images (which she allegedly complained about) from an unknown sender to friends were not protected by the First Amendment. In reaching its conclusion, the Court […]
Vol. 39 No. 15 NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS IN PART AND REVERSES IN PART DISTRICT COURT ORDERS PRELIMINARY ENJOINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW THAT PROHIBITS PERSONS WITH CONCEALED-CARRY PERMITS FROM CARRYING FIREARMS ONTO VARIOUS TYPES OF PROPERTY
In Wolford v. Lopez,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs seeking to enjoin many portions of California Penal Code section 26230, which generally prohibits a person with a concealed-carry permit from carrying a firearm onto more than […]
Vol. 39 No. 14 LAPD OFFICERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AFTER CONDUCTING A HIGH-RISK VEHICLE STOP BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE VEHICLE WAS STOLEN
In Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to individual officers. In reaching its conclusion, the Court declared that precedent clearly established that officers can be held liable for conducting a high-risk vehicle stop based on nothing […]
Vol. 39 No. 13 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHIELDED OFFICERS FROM EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM WHERE OFFICERS DEFENSIVELY RETURNED FIRE DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTING, SERIOUSLY WOUNDING A PASSENGER WHO WAS NOT SUSPECTED OF ANY WRONGDOING
In Cuevas v. City of Tulare,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on qualified immunity grounds the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that the officers used excessive force by shooting into a vehicle following a high-speed felony chase, seriously […]
Vol. 39 No. 12 NON-CONVICTED INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING SERVICES FOR A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY TO SUPPLY MEALS WITHIN THE COUNTY JAILS AND RELATED CUSTODY FACILITIES DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM FOR MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME
In November 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals posited the following certified question to the California Supreme Court: “Do non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of […]
Vol. 39 No. 11 THE PRESENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ONE CHARGE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY DEFEAT A FOURTH AMENDMENT MALICIOUS-PROSECUTION CLAIM RELATING TO ANOTHER, BASELESS CHARGE
In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon,[1] the Supreme Court of the United States vacated a Circuit Court’s holding that a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim may not succeed when a baseless charge brought by a government official is accompanied by a valid charge. The high court held instead that any valid charges do not insulate the […]