We are pleased to announced that Tarquin Preziosi was named Partner at Jones & Mayer
We are pleased to announced that Tarquin Preziosi was named Partner at Jones & Mayer on February 12, 2021. Tarquin joined the firm in 2015 and specializes in municipal law. He serves as General Counsel to the Rossmoor Community Services District, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Costa Mesa, and Deputy City Attorney for number of other cities. Tarquin graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of Law.
Vol. 37 No. 4 PLAINTIFF POLICE CHIEF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CREATED A HYBRID EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF WHERE EMPLOYMENT AS CHIEF WAS AT WILL BUT EMPLOYMENT AS LIEUTENANT WAS NOT AT WILL
In Joseph v. City of Atwater, 74 Cal. App. 5th 974 (5th Dist. 2022), the Court of Appeal held that an employment agreement created a hybrid employment relationship between a city and a plaintiff employed as a chief of police. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that under the terms of the agreement, plaintiff’s […]
Vol. 36 No. 19 SUPREME COURT REVERSES NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION TO DENY OFFICER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
In the case Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna,[1] the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision denying qualified immunity to a police officer who placed his knee on the back of an armed suspect lying face-down on the ground for eight seconds during the handcuffing process. The Supreme Court determined that Ninth […]
Vol. 36 No. 18 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF NECESSARILY ADMITTED TO THE LAWFULNESS OF AN OFFICER’S ACTIONS IN HIS GUILTY PLEA, HIS EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM WAS BARRED
In Sanders v. City of Pittsburg,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging police officers used excessive force when they deployed a police dog against plaintiff. The Court concluded that the claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), […]
Vol. 36. No. 17 GOVERNMENT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN PLAINTIFF’S ACTION ALLEGING THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER VIOLATED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY DISCIPLINING HIM FOR PROTECTED SPEECH
In Ohlson v. Brady,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that public agency defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in an employee’s action alleging the defendants violated the employee’s First Amendment rights by disciplining him for protected speech. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found no clearly established law on the issue of whether […]
Vol. 36. No. 16 AFTER PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 64, POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN PRISON REMAINS A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 4573.6
In People v. Raybon,[1] the California Supreme Court concluded that possession of cannabis in prison remains a violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, even after Proposition 64 generally legalized adult possession of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis, subject to certain exceptions. Background Penal Code section 4573.6 makes it a felony to possess a controlled […]
VOL. 36 NO. 15 STATUTORY CHANGE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
On July 23, 2021, AB1475 was signed and chaptered into law, and will take effect on January 1, 2022. The bill creates limitations on the ability of law enforcement agencies to disseminate booking photos on social media. The legislation also has retroactive reach to content already in existence or that might be created in the […]
Vol. 36 No. 20 A POLICE CHIEF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WHEN AN OFFICER ASSERTED THAT SHE HAD BEEN RETALIATED AGAINST FOR FILING SEX-DISCRIMINATION LAWSUITS
In the case of Ballou v. McElvain,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to a police chief on an officer’s First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that the officer’s speech opposing workplace sex discrimination was inherently speech on a matter of public concern and was clearly protected by the First […]
Vol. 37 No. 3 DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PURPOSE-TO-HARM TEST BECAUSE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE TIME TO DELIBERATE BEFORE SHOOTING DECEDENT
In Ochoa v. City of Mesa,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that because officers who shot and killed a decedent did not have time to deliberate before firing, the District Court correctly applied the purpose-to-harm test to determine if the officers’ conduct shocked the conscience under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals […]
Vol. 37 No. 2 OSHA EMERGENCY RULE REQUIRING EMPLOYEES OF LARGE EMPLOYERS TO BE EITHER FULLY VACCINATED AGAINST THE COVID-19 VIRUS, OR ELSE TO BE MASKED AND WEEKLY TESTED, EXCEEDS OSHA’S STATUTORY AUTHORITY
In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. DOL[1] granted a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard.[2] The standard would have required employees of large employers to be fully vaccinated, or else obtain weekly medical tests and wear […]