Genevier v. State of California

Filed 6/8/07 Genevier v. State of California CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE COURT:*

GOOD CAUSE appearing, the opinion filed in the above entitled matter on May 9, 2007, is modified as follows:

On page 10, insert the following new paragraph before the disposition:

We are not persuaded by appellants argument that Bradford v. State of California (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 16 (Bradford) compels a contrary result. In Bradford, the court held that a public entity is not immune under Government Code section 815.2(b), even if the employee whose conduct is the basis of liability is immune for such conduct under Government Code section 821.6 [public employee is not liable for instituting judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment], because public entity liability under Government Code section 815.6 provides a basis of direct entity liability entirely independent of the derivative liability created in section 815.2 which could only be negatived by a statutory entity immunity. (Bradford v. State of California, supra, at pp. 19, 21.) The facts of our case, implicate Government Code section 815(b), pursuant to which an entity is entitled to any defenses that would be available if the entity were a private person. It is that provision that supplies the requisite statutory entity immunity under Government Code section 815.6. This is because the defense of absolute quasi-judicial immunity is available to a private person for acts performed in the general scope of judicial powers; thus, under Government Code section 815(b) it is available to a public entity for acts performed in the scope of the entitys judicial powers. Since an entity can only act through its employees, where the complained of acts are performed in the exercise of the judicial function of the entitys employees, such acts are necessarily performed in the exercise of the entitys judicial function. Here, the complained of acts were performed in the exercise of respondents judicial function, and respondent is, therefore, immune under Government Code section 815(b).

[END OF MODIFICATION]

There is no change in judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

______________________________________________________________________

*RUBIN, ACTING P. J. FLIER, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.