Dougherty

Dougherty v. Golden Gate Bridge

Good Law
31 F. Supp. 2d 724·1998 WL 918223·1998 A.M.C. 2658·1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21512
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 1998C 97-2994 SBA (ARB)California3,849 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this action for injuries allegedly sustained while she was employed by defendant Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Plaintiff filed her complaint under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, and general admiralty law, asserting that her injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence and the unseaworthiness of defendant’s sea vessels.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment arguing that plaintiffs claims are precluded by the California Torts Claim Act (“CTCA”), through which defendant contends that it enjoys sovereign immunity. Defendant does not claim Eleventh Amendment immunity; rather, it claims a different type of immunity — immunity conferred by the state. It asserts that it did not waive its immunity under the CTCA in this ease, as plaintiff failed to file notice of her claim with defendant as required by the CTCA.

In addition, defendant asserts that plaintiffs unseaworthiness claim should be summarily adjudicated because it is a nonstatuto-ry cause of action premised on strict liability and, as such, it is not…

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.