Heltebrake v. City of Riverside

• Decision Date: 29 December 2015
• Docket Number: B254132
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: RICHARD HELTEBRAKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendant and Respondent.

RICHARD HELTEBRAKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendant and Respondent.

B254132

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

December 29, 2015

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC507269)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth A. White, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas Law Firm, Allen L. Thomas, Sivi G. Pederson and Gordon C. Stuart for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Cristina L. Talley, Interim City Attorney and Gregg M. Gu, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Timothy T. Coates and Alana H. Rotter for Defendant and Respondent

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Richard Heltebrake, appeals from a demurrer dismissal of his first amended complaint entered in favor of defendant, the City of Riverside. We have previously issued an unpublished opinion under this case number resolving other issues concerning plaintiff and several codefendants. (Heltebrake v. City of Los Angeles (Aug. 11, 2015, B2541323) [nonpub. opn.].) We now resolve the remaining dispute between plaintiff and defendant.

We conclude plaintiff has forfeited any contentions concerning the merits of the demurrer dismissal as it relates to his contract breach claims. In his opening brief, he chose not to address the grounds for the demurrer to his contract breach claims in any depth. As we will explain, plaintiff's constitutional and declaratory relief claims have no merit. Additionally, plaintiff has likewise failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend his first amended complaint. We thus affirm.

II. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT'S ALLEGATIONS

A. General Allegations

Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges claims against defendant for: contract breach (second cause of action); due process violations under the federal and state Constitutions (sixth and seventh causes of action); and declaratory relief (eighth cause of action). Plaintiff sued: the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside; defendant and the Cities of Los Angeles and Irvine; James and Karen Reynolds; Lee McDaniel; Daniel J. McGowan; and the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon. Plaintiff's claims arise out of the refusal of the aforementioned public entities to pay a reward for information provided in connection with the shooting death of Christopher Dorner. Between February 3 and 7, 2013, Mr. Dorner had murdered Monica Quan, Keith Lawrence and a police officer employed by defendant. In addition, two other officers were wounded by Mr. Dorner. Mr. Dorner's crime spree lead the aforementioned public entities to offer rewards and the effort to arrest him was highly publicized.

On February 10, 2013, a press release was prepared by the Los Angeles Police Department. The press release explained why a press conference would be held later in the day: "To announce a reward for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of [Mr.] Dorner, the suspect wanted for murdering [Ms.] Quan, [Mr.] Lawrence, a Riverside Police Officer and for shooting and wounding police officers from the Riverside and Los Angeles Police Departments." On February 10, 2013, the televised news conference was held involving: then Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; defendant's Mayor Rusty Bailey; Irvine's Mayor Dr. Steven Choi; and various law enforcement agencies. According to the first amended complaint: "Mayor Villaraigosaon behalf of the City of Los Angeles offered a one million dollar reward for the apprehension and capture of [Mr.] Dorner. Mayor Villaraigosa announced that the reward was comprised of funds donated from multiple jurisdictions, including the Cities of Los Angeles, Riverside and Irvine, and private entities and individuals."

On February 10, 2013, the day before the press conference, Mayor Bailey prepared a resolution authorizing up to $100,000 "toward the reward." Defendant's city council was to vote on the resolution on February 12, 2013, the day after the press conference. The media advisory issued by the Riverside Police Department on February 10, 2013 states: "At a joint press conference in Los Angeles today, officials of the cities of Riverside, Los Angeles and Irvine, accompanied by federal law enforcement officials, announced a $1 million dollar reward for information leading to the capture and conviction of [Mr. Dorner]. 'This is the largest local reward ever offered, to our knowledge,' said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. The reward includes contributions from businesses and private individuals as well as public funds. . . . Mayor . . . Bailey and Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz spoke at the press conference. [¶] . . . Mayor . . . Bailey has prepared a resolution, to be voted on by the full City Council on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, authorizing up to $100,000 toward the reward. Similarly, Supervisor John Benoit, in his capacity as the chair of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, will on Wednesday, February 13, 2013, present to the board a resolution authorizing $100,000 for the reward from the County."

On February 11, 2013, Mayor Bailey issued a special meeting notice concerning defendant's city council which states in part, "Notice is hereby given that a Special Meeting of the City Council . . . will be held on February 12, 2013 . . . for adoption of a Resolution . . . offering a reward in the amount of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the murder of Riverside Police Officer Michael Crain and the assault of his partner officer on February 7, 2013."

Defendant's February 12, 2013 revised city council agenda identifies as a matter to be considered on the discussion calendar, "Mayor Bailey recommends a Resolution . . . offering a reward in the amount of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the murder of Riverside Police Officer Michael Crain and the assault of his partner officer on February 7, 2013. . . ." Defendant's city council minutes for February 12, 2013, state in part: "The City Council adopted a resolution offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for the murder of Riverside Police Officer Michael Crain and the assault of his partner officer while the officers were acting in the line of duty: whereupon, the title having been read and further reading waived, Resolution No. 22497 . . . offering a Reward in the Amount of $100,000 for Information Leading to the Arrest and Conviction of the Person or Persons Responsible for the Murder of Riverside Police Officer Michael Crain and the Assault of His Partner Officer on February 7, 2013, was presented and adopted[.]" Plaintiff alleges in the first amended complaint that the foregoing resolution offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the"apprehension and capture" of Mr. Dorner. As noted, defendant's actual city council minutes state that the reward was to be given to persons providing for information leading to the suspect's arrest and conviction.

Also, on February 12, 2013, the City of Los Angeles City Council approved a $100,000 reward for information leading to the identification, apprehension and conviction of Mr. Dorner. Later, on March 12, 2013, the City of Irvine adopted a resolution providing that $100,000 was to be included in the multi-agency reward fund. The resolution states that it is appropriate for the City of Irvine to contribute to the multi-agency reward. Two of the resolution's whereas clauses refer to rewarding persons who provided information that led to the identification and apprehension of the individual responsible for the killings.

According to the first amended complaint, the City of Los Angeles received additional funds from unidentified "corporations, entities, and individuals" which increased the amount of the $1 million reward. These unspecified funds which added to the $1 million reward offered by the City of Los Angeles, were placed into a trust account entitled, "Dorner Reward Trust Account" maintained by the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon.

The first amended complaint describes plaintiff's interactions with Mr. Dorner and others. Plaintiff worked at a youth camp located in the Barton Flats area of the San Bernardino National Forest. Prior to February 10, 2013, plaintiff learned about Mr. Dorner's criminal conduct. On February 10, 2013, plaintiff learned of the rewarddiscussed at Mayor Villaraigosa's press conference on the same day. While returning to the youth camp on February 12, 2013, plaintiff saw San Bernardino County Deputy Sheriff Paul Franklin. Plaintiff and Deputy Franklin, who were both driving, acknowledged each other. Deputy Franklin was followed by a Department of Fish and Game truck. Thereafter, plaintiff was confronted by Mr. Dorner. Plaintiff was ordered out of his truck. Mr. Dorner then drove away in plaintiff's truck. After Mr. Dorner drove away, plaintiff telephoned Deputy Franklin. The first amended complaint describes their telephone conversation: "When Deputy Franklin answered [his telephone], he asked, 'What do you have?' Plaintiff responded by reporting that his truck had just been stolen at gun point by [Mr.] Dorner. Deputy Franklin responded by asking, 'Where?' Plaintiff reported his location. . . . Deputy Franklin asked for a description of [his] truck and plaintiff provided him with the description. While speaking with Deputy Franklin, plaintiff heard gunshots from a direction downhill from his location, which he also reported to Deputy...