Lozada

Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 1139·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1961·2006 Daily Journal DAR 16397·52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209·25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1080
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 2006A111423California12,437 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Introduction

Is a public safety officer, when seeking actual damages and civil penalties in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)) required to present a claim to the public entity employer pursuant to the “Government Claims Act” (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.)? We shall conclude that in this case, where the claims for money and damages pursued by the officer were more than “incidental” to the extraordinary relief sought, the answer is yes.

Police Officer Paul R. Lozada appeals from a judgment of the San Francisco County Superior Court in favor of defendants City and County of San Francisco (hereafter City) and individual defendants. He contends that the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of his cause of action against City for numerous alleged violations of POBRA on the ground that his failure to file a claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act barred his POBRA cause of action. He asserts that a public safety officer pursuing an action under POBRA has a right to immediate access to the courts, without first complying with the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.