Ingram

Ingram v. Flippo

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 845·74 Cal. App. 4th 1280·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60·99 Daily Journal DAR 9849·1999 WL 722716
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1999H018406California6,527 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

Candace Ingram, a member of a local school board, filed suit against Dean Flippo, the District Attorney of Monterey County (the District Attorney), and Monterey County (the County), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under California’s “Open Meeting Law,” the Ralph M. Brown Act (hereafter the Brown Act, or the Act). (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.) The allegations of the complaint stemmed from statements made in a press release by the District Attorney that there had been minor violations of the Brown Act by several board members. Ingram disagreed with the District Attorney’s conclusions and interpretation of the Brown Act. She sought a judicial declaration that she had not violated the Act and also sought an injunction to prevent the District Attorney from further interfering with her rights.

The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend on grounds that the District Attorney and the County were protected by prosecutorial immunity (§ 821.6), that the statements made by the District Attorney were privileged (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (a)), and that plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action under the Brown Act (§ 54960, subd. (a).).

We find that 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.