Roger v. Cnty. of Riverside

• Decision Date: 09 January 2020
• Docket Number: E070776
• Citation: 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 566,44 Cal.App.5th 510
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Douglas J. ROGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Defendants and Respondents.

44 Cal.App.5th 510

257 Cal.Rptr.3d 566

Douglas J. ROGER, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Defendants and Respondents.

E070776

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Filed January 9, 2020

Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney, Shaun M. Murphy, Palm Springs, and Wendy S. Dowse, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Diesenhouse Law and Bruce E. Disenhouse,Riverside, for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

SLOUGH J.

Douglas Roger, an orthopedic surgeon, sued Riverside County (the County) and its sheriff's department (collectively, respondents) after they falsely reported he had been charged with a felony. In an earlier civil action, the Riverside Superior Court had held Roger in civil contempt ( Code Civ. Proc. § 1209, subd. (a)(5) ) for refusing to produce his patients' medical records in discovery, and remanded him to jail, where he spent 52 days in custody. When the sheriff's department booked him into custody, they incorrectly entered his civil violation in their electronic database as a felony charge, and then reported that inaccurate charge to the California Department of Justice (DOJ), creating a false criminal record for Roger. The complaint he subsequently filed against respondents asserted five causes of action—defamation, defamation per se, writ of mandate, declaratory relief, and violation of his federal civil rights ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) (the " section 1983 claim"). Among other things, he alleges he lost a lucrative hospital contract he had maintained for the previous 12 years as a result of the respondents' error.

The trial court sustained respondents' demurrer to the section 1983 claim and later disposed of the remaining causes of action at the summary judgment stage. The court concluded Roger had failed to state a section 1983 claim as a matter of law because he had not alleged facts "establishing the nature of [respondents'] training program" and therefore failed to allege the training was so obviously inadequate as to amount to deliberate indifference to inmates' civil rights. The court dismissed the defamation claims because the undisputed evidence showed Roger had failed to comply with the claim presentation requirements in the Government Claims Act ( Gov. Code,¹ § 810 et seq. ) by filing a late claim for damages with the County. The court concluded the writ claim failed because the undisputed evidence showed respondents had fixed the error in Roger's record during the litigation, and therefore their recordkeeping errors amounted to a past wrong, not a present controversy. Finally, the court concluded there was no legal basis for declaratory relief because respondents were under no ministerial duty to act—that is, to maintain correct records.

On appeal, Roger challenges the court's dismissal of each of his claims. For the reasons explained below, we find his arguments meritorious and will therefore reverse the judgment.

I

BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying Facts

In 2013, Roger was a defendant in a civil action regarding the collection of a commercial note (Revere Financial Corporation v. Roger et al. , case No. INC092308). The court-appointed receiver in that case sought production of Roger's business records, including the medical records of his current and past patients. Citing HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and other privacy laws, Roger refused to produce the medical records. On October 16, 2013, the trial court issued an order compelling Roger to produce the medical records, held him in contempt for failing to comply with the order, and remanded him to jail. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).) That same day, Roger presented himself to the sheriff's deputies who were waiting to escort him to jail.

Respondents use an electronic booking database called Jail Information Management System (JIMS) and forward booking entries to the DOJ. Unknown to Roger, when he was booked, respondents entered his charge into JIMS as a felony (even though contempt of court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1209 is a civil violation) and reported the felony charge to the DOJ.

Roger was released from jail on December 6, 2013, at which point he discovered a letter sent to him from the medical staff president at a hospital where he worked. The letter said the hospital's executive committee had learned, based on information "gleaned from the Riverside Superior Court and Riverside Jail websites," that he had recently been "arrested and incarcerated on a felony charge for contempt of court." The letter informed Roger that he had failed to satisfy his obligation to notify them of any felony arrest or conviction. In a declaration submitted during this lawsuit, Roger said his attorney had assured him "there was nothing criminal about civil contempt," and as a result, he assumed the letter was "merely repeating a rumor" sparked by "a practicing surgeon being taken off to jail in surgical attire." He said he "had no knowledge of a jail website" and could not imagine "that a civil collection case could be used by a law enforcement agency to create a criminal history and publicly label me as an accused felon."

In April 2014, Roger's girlfriend (who had also been held in civil contempt in the prior lawsuit) called the jail to ask if they could remove the felony designations in her and Roger's booking entries. According to the girlfriend, the employee she spoke with said the designation would "disappear shortly" because they were no longer in custody. In May 2014, Desert Oasis Healthcare, a group health care practice, terminated its contract with Roger.

On September 10, 2014, Roger filed a claim for damages with the County, using its "Claim for Damages to Person or Property" form. Regarding timing, the form asks, "When did damage or injury occur?" and Roger wrote "May 1, 2014 and ongoing." In response to the question, "Why do you claim the County is responsible?" Roger wrote, "I was detained by the Riverside County Jail on a civil matter. The Riverside County Jail subsequently posted on its public website that I had been incarcerated on felony criminal charges. This false and defamatory statement has caused significant damage to my professional reputation as a physician and an orthopedic surgeon. It has resulted in loss of professional services contracts, loss of patient referrals, and significant loss of income." In response to the prompt "List damages incurred to date," Roger wrote that he had lost his contract with Desert Oasis Healthcare on May 1, 2014 as a result of the false statement. He said he had earned about $1 million per year for the previous 12 years under that contract, and had expected to retain it for another 15 years. Roger attached the following documents to his claim—(1) a printout from JIMS reflecting he had been booked on October 16, 2013 for felony contempt of court; (2) the letter from Eisenhower Medical Center regarding his arrest; (3) a letter from Desert Oasis Healthcare dated August 18, 2014, referencing the fact their contract with Roger had terminated on May 1, 2014; and (4) copies of paychecks from Desert Oasis Healthcare for the first four months of 2014.

On October 1, 2014, the County sent Roger a letter informing him in summary fashion that it had rejected his claim.

Around that time, Roger learned respondents had notified the DOJ of the inaccurate felony charge and that he had a criminal record as a result. Roger was in law school then, and his professor, Sue Steding, a former Chief Assistant District Attorney in Riverside County, agreed to look into his predicament. She spoke with an undersheriff, and on October 31, 2014, he left her a voicemail saying Roger's booking entry in JIMS had been changed to reflect he had been charged with a misdemeanor instead of a felony (which was also incorrect because his violation of the court's order was not criminal). This revised booking information was also transmitted to the DOJ.

The following month, in preparation for his moral character application for the California Bar, Roger applied for a background check and learned he still had a criminal record, except now the inaccurate charge was listed as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. In response, he submitted two unsuccessful requests to the DOJ to expunge the criminal charge from his record.

B. Roger's Lawsuit

Roger filed this lawsuit on April 1, 2015. In his second amended complaint, he alleged causes of action for defamation, defamation per se, writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, and violation of his civil rights ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). In addition to damages for defamation, he sought a writ of mandate prohibiting respondents from designating civil contempt (violations of Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5) ) as criminal charges and directing them to designate such charges in a manner that reflects their civil nature. He also sought a declaration from the court that respondents had falsely reported he had been charged with a felony, and later falsely reported he had been charged with a misdemeanor.

1. Rulings on demurrer

Respondents filed a demurrer to each claim in Roger's complaint. As relevant here, they argued the defamation claims failed as a matter of law because they were immune from tort liability for their booking actions under section 821.6, which immunizes public employees from liability for injuries caused by their instituting or prosecuting a judicial proceeding in the scope of their employment. They also argued the section 1983 claim failed as a matter of law because Roger had not specifically alleged how they trained their employees on booking procedures and therefore had not alleged their training showed a deliberate indifference to inmates' civil rights.

The court overruled the demurrer to the defamation claims, concluding section 821.6's immunity "is limited to actions taken by law enforcement personnel in the course of or as a consequence of an investigation" and did not apply to booking because it was not part of the...