Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles
Decision Date | 29 July 1994 |
Docket Number | No. B073845,B073845 |
Citation | 27 Cal.App.4th 168,32 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. |
Gregory G. Petersen and Larry J. Roberts, Orange, for plaintiffs and appellants.
James K. Hahn, City Atty., Frederick N. Merkin, Sr. Asst. City Atty., and Robert Cramer, Asst. City Atty., for defendant and respondent.
In this appeal, we consider whether a public entity is required to indemnify public employees for legal fees incurred in successfully defending themselves against criminal prosecutions arising from actions taken within the course and scope of their employment. We conclude that indemnification for such criminal defense costs is discretionary on the part of the public entity rather than mandatory. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of the public entity.
On January 29, 1992, plaintiffs and appellants, police officers Thomas Elfmont, Charles Spicer, Charles Wilson and Todd Parrick, and their unions, Los Angeles Police Protective League and Los Angeles Police Command Officers Association, filed suit against defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles (City) seeking indemnity for legal fees incurred in their successful defense of criminal charges brought for actions taken within the scope of the officers' employment. 1 Plaintiffs sought indemnity under Labor Code section 2802, which provides employees indemnity for expenditures necessarily incurred in connection with their employment. 2 The City demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled and the City answered. At the trial on October 30, 1992, the parties stipulated that the trial court should decide the case based on the proposed stipulated facts. The trial court took the matter under submission. On December 24, 1992, the trial court issued its memorandum of decision, rendering judgment in favor of the City and against plaintiffs. Judgment was entered on February 17, 1993, in favor of the City. Plaintiffs appeal. 3
The stipulated facts upon which this case was tried are as follows: 4
Plaintiffs contend Labor Code section 2802 entitles them to be indemnified by the City for legal fees incurred in successfully defending themselves against criminal charges arising out of actions taken in the course and scope of their employment with the City. Plaintiffs further contend that the Labor Code provision prevails over an apparently conflicting provision of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 995.8.
Government Code section 995.8 provides in pertinent part:
This section was enacted in 1963 as part of the California Tort Claims Act. The Tort Claims Act was enacted in order to provide a comprehensive codification of the law of governmental liability and immunity. Government Code section 995.8 is not a solitary statute standing alone, but an important part of an overall statutory scheme governing the relations between public entities and their employees when the employees have been charged with wrongdoing.
In 1957, the California Law Revision Commission was authorized by the Legislature to conduct a study to determine whether the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity should be abolished or revised. (Recommendations Relating to Sovereign Immunity, No. 1, Tort Liability of Public Entities and Public Employees (Jan. 1963) 4 Cal.Law Revision Com.Rep. (1963) p. 803.) However, before the Law Revision Commission completed its study and issued its recommendations, the California Supreme Court decided Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211, 213, 11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457, in which it "discarded as mistaken and unjust" the judicial doctrine of governmental immunity from tort liability. In response to this decision, the Legislature enacted a statute suspending the effect of the Supreme Court decision so as to give the Legislature, and the Law Revision Commission, time to revise the law of sovereign immunity. (Recommendations Relating to Sovereign Immunity, No. 1, Tort Liability of Public Entities and Public Employees, supra, at p. 803.) 5 In January 1963, the Law Revision Commission issued its recommendations, which the Legislature relied on in large part in enacting the Tort Claims Act.
The Tort Claims Act provides that in the usual civil case brought against a public employee, a public entity is required to defend the action against its employee (Gov.Code, § 995). 6 The public entity may provide the defense by its own counsel, by outside counsel or through insurance which includes a duty to defend provision. (Id. at § 996.) The public entity is also required to pay any judgment entered against the public employee in favor of the third party plaintiff. (Id. at § 825, subd. (a).) However, the public entity is not required to pay the defense costs or the judgment 7 if the act giving rise to the underlying action was not within the course and scope of public employment, nor is the entity required to provide a defense if the employee's act or failure to act was the result of actual fraud, corruption or malice. Former Government Code section 2001 required a defense to be provided to an employee sued because "of any action taken or work done by him in his official capacity, in good faith and without malice...." (Stats.1951, ch. 1087, § 1, p. 2822.) Under this statute, before a public entity was required to provide a defense, the employee had to prove good faith and lack of malice. It was unclear who was required to decide, and by what quantum of proof, that the employee was free from bad faith and malice. (Tracy v. County of Fresno (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 52, 56-57, 270 P.2d 57.) In 1961, former Government Code section 2001 was revised. The new statute required the public entity to provide a defense when any claim was brought for acts within the course and scope of employment, but it could later recover the fees paid if "it is established that the public employee acted or failed to act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case
...legal counsel to employee, it would not be "necessary" for employee to hire own counsel]; Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 168, 177, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 ["This right to indemnity encompasses only the right to indemnity for necessary expenditur......
-
McLaughlin v. State Bd. of Education
...is subject matter.' (People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1577-1578 ; see also Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 168, 178-179 ; Yoffie v. Marin Hospital Dist. (1987) 193 Cal. App.3d 743, 748 ; Conservatorship of Ivey (1986) 186 Cal......
-
Pelayo v. City of Downey
...of Santa Clara, 11 Cal.4th 992, 1001, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 906 P.2d 440 (1995) (citing Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.App.4th 168, 174, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 (1994)). "As part of its overall statutory scheme, the Tort Claims Act provides that in the usual ci......
-
Thornton v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
...employers to reimburse employees for investigation costs. (See Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 168, 179, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 ( Los Angeles Police Protective League ) [specific provisions of Gov.Code, § 995.8 pertaining to public employer's de......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2013
...55 Cal. 2d 224 (1961), although Lipman has been questioned in recent years. See L.A. Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. App. 4th 168 (1994); Ramirez v. City of Redondo Beach, 185 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1986).58. 217 Cal. App. 4th 877 (2013).59. 55 Cal. 4th 1083 (2012).60. C......