City of Glendale v. Superior Court

Good Law
116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 86·2002 Daily Journal DAR 1427·95 Cal. App. 4th 1266·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1180
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 2002B152057California1,937 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boland, J.

Summary

A trial court erred in granting a motion to strike a municipality’s request for punitive damages. Public entities are not, as a matter of law, precluded from pursuing claims for punitive damages.

Factual and Procedural Background

In January 1998, real party in interest Robert L. Fenton sued petitioners City of Glendale and Glendale Redevelopment Agency (collectively City) to recover a contingency fee. Fenton, an attorney who since resigned from the State Bar, alleged he was retained by the City to recover eminent domain funds it was owed by the County of Los Angeles, and the City had agreed to pay him a percentage of the funds he recovered on its behalf. The City answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Fenton for fraud, among other things. By its cross-action, the City alleged Fenton had colluded with cross-defendant Gregory Pentoney to defraud the City, for which the City was entitled to recover general, special and punitive damages. Pentoney is the former senior accountant/auditor for the finance department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Los Angeles District Attorney subsequently initiated a criminal prosecution against…

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.