Teasdale v. City of Fullterton

Filed 4/19/06 Teasdale v. City of Fullterton CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed.

Callari & Summers and Andrew C. Callari; Paoli & Paoli and Sylvia Paoli for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Jones & Mayer and Harold W. Potter for Defendants and Respondents.

Betty C. Teasdale and her mother, Audrey B. Teasdale (sometimes collectively the Teasdales), appeal a judgment in favor of the City of Fullerton, its City Council, two code enforcement officers, and the Assistant City Attorney (sometimes collectively the City). After a code enforcement matter against the Teasdales was dismissed, the Teasdales sued the City for a variety of torts (including malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, misrepresentation, trespass, and conspiracy), and for violation of their civil rights under title 42 United States Code sections 1983 and 1985. After two rounds of demurrers and amended pleadings, the City's demurrer to the Teasdales' third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend as to all but the malicious prosecution and abuse of process causes of action. At trial, the court granted the City's motion for a directed verdict on the remaining causes of action.

On appeal, the Teasdales contend the demurrer was improperly sustained without leave to amend. We conclude the absolute immunity afforded public entities and their employees under section 821.6 of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.),[1] for the institution or prosecution of judicial or administrative proceedings bars the Teasdales' state and common law tort claims, including those that went to trial. We further conclude similar immunities preclude the Teasdales' federal civil rights causes of action. Those conclusions render the Teasdales' complaints regarding procedural aspects of the trial moot. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Betty Teasdale, a retired medical doctor, is an avid organic gardener, and is also a lawyer having attended law school during the times of these events. In 2000, Betty Teasdale and her then 85‑year‑old mother, Audrey, resided together in Fullerton and ran a small organic nursery business from the residence.

In May 2000, Sharon Pickens, a code enforcement officer for the City, under the supervision of Ginny Barton, another code enforcement officer, and Gregory Palmer, Assistant City Attorney for the City, filed six misdemeanor counts against the Teasdales accusing them of various municipal and state building code violations, including building a shade structure without a building permit, improperly using extension cords in place of fixed wiring, and running afoul of various requirements applicable to the operation of a home occupation. In November 2000, the trial court sustained demurrers to the criminal complaints with leave to amend because the complaints did not contain pictures of the alleged violations and the facts alleged â€