Kaplan

Kaplan v. LaBarbera

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 811·58 Cal. App. 4th 175·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903·97 Daily Journal DAR 12715·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7917
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1997B105716California1,182 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Here we conclude that county government and its employees have immunity from liability for actions taken to collect child support from plaintiff. [[/]] We affirm.

Facts

Miles Joel Kaplan sued the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office, the district attorney, a deputy district attorney, a family support division supervisor and a family support officer.

Among Kaplan’s claims is that the defendants failed to properly apply the guideline formula for child support in determining his obligation; failed to agree to a modification of his child support obligation; falsely represented that no judge would modify his child support; used intimidation, undue influence and duress; had his real estate license suspended; collected child support from the proceeds of a settlement in his personal injury action; and left him destitute. Kaplan’s complaint alleged many causes of action under state law and a federal cause of action under 42 United States Code section 1983 .

The defendants moved for summary judgment. They claimed they were immune from liability under state law pursuant to Government Code sections 821.6 and 815.2, subdivision (b). The individual defendants also…

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.