Leggett v. DiGiorgio Corp.

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtSHOEMAKER
Citation80 Cal.Rptr. 697,276 Cal.App.2d 306
PartiesJohn C. LEGGETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The DiGIORGIO CORPORATION; DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation; and J. Stewart Harrison, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 25324.
Decision Date23 September 1969

Page 697

80 Cal.Rptr. 697
276 Cal.App.2d 306
John C. LEGGETT, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
The DiGIORGIO CORPORATION; DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation; and J. Stewart Harrison, Defendants and Respondents.
Civ. 25324.
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Sept. 23, 1969.

Page 698

[276 Cal.App.2d 307] Nason, Lydon & Gaines, Berkeley, for appellant.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, San Francisco, for respondents DiGiorgio.

Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, for respondent Harrison.

SHOEMAKER, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiff John Leggett from a summary judgment in favor of defendants The DiGiorgio Corporation, DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation and J. Stewart Harrison.

Plaintiff Leggett brought this action for false arrest and imprisonment and damages caused him thereby.

All defendants answered and admitted that plaintiff had been arrested by defendant Harrison, who was acting in the scope of his authority as an attorney retained by the two corporate defendants. Defendants further admitted that plaintiff was involuntarily imprisoned following said arrest and that defendants thereafter executed a complaint charging plaintiff with a violation of Penal Code, section 166. However, defendants asserted that their conduct was legally justified by the fact that plaintiff, in Harrison's presence, had wilfully committed criminal contempt, in

Page 699

violation of Penal Code, section 166, by engaging in picketing in deliberate violation of a [276 Cal.App.2d 308] temporary restraining order previously issued by the superior court and still in full force and effect at the time of plaintiff's arrest.

Defendants thereafter moved for summary judgment and filed in support of said motion the declaration of defendant Harrison. According to said declaration, Harrison, as attorney representing the two corporate defendants, had on December 14, 1965, obtained from a superior court judge a temporary restraining order which was to remain in effect until December 28, 1965; that the order in question provided that the Farm Workers Association (FWA) and Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), their officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees, deputies, members and pickets, and persons acting in concert with them, were restrained from picketing or patrolling at or about Pier 37 in San Francisco, or in any of the streets leading thereto, for the purpose of interfering with the delivery of grapes or other agricultural produce of The DiGiorgio Corporation to said pier or the shipment of such produce from said terminal. Harrison further averred that prior to 7 a.m. on December 17, 1965, he arrived at Pier 37 and that both pickets and San Francisco police officers were present; that Harrison and another attorney served copies of the temporary restraining order on the pickets and explained the contents of said order to them; that most of the pickets then departed but that several refused and that Harrison and his fellow attorney, with the assistance of the San Francisco police, then made citizens' arrests upon them. Harrison averred that the pickets were carrying signs reading 'Support Delano Strikers' and that the loading of grapes of The DiGiorgio Corporation was not carried out during the picketing. The declaration further stated that plaintiff Leggett was carrying such a picket sign and was walking back and forth in front of the entrance of Pier 37; that Harrison served plaintiff with a copy of the temporary restraining order and explained to him that the picketing of the dock had been enjoined by a superior court order; that plaintiff appeared to read the order himself while continuing to hold his picket sign; that Harrison described certain paragraphs of the order to plaintiff and asked him to peacefully move on but that plaintiff replied that he did not think that he would do so. After a San Francisco police officer had likewise told plaintiff of the court order and asked him to move on, plaintiff still refused to do so and stated that he did not care what a court said, that he had a right to remain and [276 Cal.App.2d 309] was going to stay and continue picketing. Harrison averred that he then asked plaintiff his name and advised him that he found it his duty to arrest him. Harrison then touched plaintiff's arm and advised a police officer that he was making a citizen's arrest of plaintiff. Although the officer and Harrison thereafter offered plaintiff a further opportunity to reconsider his decision,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Zellner v. Lasky
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1970
    ...party and his opponent's affidavits are insufficient to present any triable issue of facts. (Citation.)' (Leggett v. Di Giorgio Corp., 276 Cal.App.2d 306, 310--311, 80 Cal.Rptr. 697, With the foregoing principles in mind we turn to the facts here presented. In 1966 Mission entered into a sa......
  • Singleton v. U.S. Gypsum Co., No. B184623.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 2006
    ...556, 122 P.2d 264) that has received steady support 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 through the years. (E.g., Leggett v. Di Giorgio Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 306, 311, 80 Cal.Rptr. 697; Chilson v. P.G. Industries (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 613, 615, 344 P.2d 868; Gardner v. Shreve (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 804,......
  • Rainer v. Grossman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1973
    ...determine if the facts would support a judgment for defendant and negate the existence of a triable issue. (Leggett v. DiGiorgio Corp., 276 Cal.App.2d 306, 80 Cal.Rptr. Here the defendant's moving papers consisted principally of (1) the opinion of the Court of Appeal in the Ventura Case; (2......
3 cases
  • Zellner v. Lasky
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1970
    ...party and his opponent's affidavits are insufficient to present any triable issue of facts. (Citation.)' (Leggett v. Di Giorgio Corp., 276 Cal.App.2d 306, 310--311, 80 Cal.Rptr. 697, With the foregoing principles in mind we turn to the facts here presented. In 1966 Mission entered into a sa......
  • Singleton v. U.S. Gypsum Co., No. B184623.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 2006
    ...556, 122 P.2d 264) that has received steady support 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 through the years. (E.g., Leggett v. Di Giorgio Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 306, 311, 80 Cal.Rptr. 697; Chilson v. P.G. Industries (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 613, 615, 344 P.2d 868; Gardner v. Shreve (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 804,......
  • Rainer v. Grossman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1973
    ...determine if the facts would support a judgment for defendant and negate the existence of a triable issue. (Leggett v. DiGiorgio Corp., 276 Cal.App.2d 306, 80 Cal.Rptr. Here the defendant's moving papers consisted principally of (1) the opinion of the Court of Appeal in the Ventura Case; (2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT