Johnson v. County of Fresno
Decision Date | 03 September 2003 |
Docket Number | No. F041054.,F041054. |
Citation | 111 Cal.App.4th 1087,4 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Christina JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Law Offices of Wagner & Jones and Andrew B. Jones, Fresno; Law Office of John K. Ormond and John K. Ormond IV, Fresno, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Michael G. Woods, Joseph R. Becerra, Fresno, and Todd W. Baxter, for Defendants and Respondents.
Getting a grasp of this case requires a trip through a procedural maze culminating in a nonintuitive result, a journey for which we beg the reader's indulgence. Christina Johnson filed a complaint against the County of Fresno and one of its employees, Michael Stribling, alleging claims for sexual harassment, negligence and other torts. Stribling worked for the County's Department of Health and was Johnson's treating counselor. Alleging that Stribling made sexual advances toward her (among other things), Johnson filed a complaint against the County and Stribling. The County denied Stribling any defense, reasoning that he acted outside the course and scope of his employment. On the day set for the hearing of the County's motion for summary judgment on this issue, Johnson dismissed the County out of the lawsuit, with prejudice. Johnson later entered into a stipulated judgment in the amount of $165,000 with Stribling, who, predictably, admitted his contact with Johnson occurred during the course and scope of his employment with the County. The errant employee, Stribling, then assigned to Johnson his right to pursue indemnification from the County. Johnson then filed a complaint against the County seeking indemnification (on behalf of Stribling) from the County and agreed not to try to collect against Stribling for 18 months.
Irritated, the County filed a demurrer which was sustained without leave to amend. The trial court opined that our holding in Rivas v. City of Kerman (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1110, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 147 precluded Johnson's recovery because the County refused to provide a defense. Johnson appeals, arguing Government Code section 825.2 provides a potential basis for her recovery.
We conclude section 825.2 permits a public employee to seek indemnification from his employer for a stipulated judgment where the employer has refused to provide a defense on the ground the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. Recognizing the County's frustration in being sued by a party that originally dismissed it out with prejudice and who is now in alliance with an alleged sexual aggressor, we are reminded of William Shakespeare's character, Trinculo, from The Tempest, who lamented: "misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows."1
Johnson argues that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend based on the following grounds: 1) section 825.2 allows for a public employee's recovery from his employer even where the employer has declined to provide a defense to the employee because the employee was allegedly acting outside the scope of his employment; and/or 2) Government Code sections 825 and 825.2 do not provide the exclusive basis under which a public entity may be required to provide indemnity for the acts of its employees.
"In reviewing a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we must assume the truth of all facts properly pleaded by the plaintiff ..., as well as those that are judicially noticeable." (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 369, 23 P.3d 601.) Here, the issues are predominantly legal.
Johnson contends that section 825.2 allows for a public employee's recovery from his employer even where the employer has declined to provide a defense. We first review the relevant Government Code provisions.
Section 825, subdivision (a), states:
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if an employee or former employee of a public entity requests the public entity to defend him or her against any claim or action against him or her for an injury arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity and the request is made in writing not less than 10 days before the day of trial, and the employee or former employee reasonably cooperates in good faith in the defense of the claim or action, the public entity shall pay any judgment based thereon or any compromise or settlement of the claim or action to which the public entity has agreed."
Section 825.2, in turn, provides:
Both parties rely on our holding in Rivas v. City of Kerman, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th 1110, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 147, in support of their positions. In Rivas, a public entity declined to defend its employee on the ground the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. The plaintiffs entered into a stipulated judgment with the employee, who assigned to the plaintiffs all claims he had against his employer. The plaintiffs then filed an action for declaratory relief, alleging that section 825 required the public entity to pay the stipulated judgment on the employee's behalf. We held that section 825 does not compel a public entity to pay a judgment entered against its employee unless the public entity provided the employee's defense. (Rivas v. City of Kerman, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1113-1114, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 147.)
In reaching our conclusion, we addressed the relationship between sections 825 and 825.2. The analysis is useful here:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reyes v. Beneficial State Bank
...Cruz under the Contract including the right to enforce the Contract and its attorney fee provision. ( Johnson v. County of Fresno (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1096, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 ["assignment carries with it all the rights of the assignor"]; see U. Comm. Code, § 3203, subd. (d) [same fo......
-
Boeken v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc.
...of her loss-of-consortium claim operated as a final adjudication of the merits of that claim. (Johnson v. County of Fresno (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1095-1096, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 475; Rice v. Crow (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 725, 733-734, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 110.) Nor does plaintiff dispute that the par......
-
In re Wellpoint, Inc. Out–Of–Network “UCR” Rates Litig., MDL 09–2074 PSG (FFMx).
...he takes “all the rights of the assignor” and has exclusive rights to sue on the assigned claims. Johnson v. Cnty. of Fresno, 111 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1096, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 (2003); accord Eden, 420 Fed.Appx. 696, 698 (Bybee, J., dissenting). No such allegation is pleaded here. Second, the CT......
-
Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.
...nothing to do with the "inner workings" of Tyco's acquisition of T&B's electronics division. Cardinal's reliance on Johnson v. County of Fresno (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1087 is misplaced. In Johnson, Johnson sued Stribling, a county employee. (Id. at p. 1089.) As part of the Johnson-Stribling......