Biggs

Biggs v. Best, Best & Krieger

Good Law
189 F.3d 989·99 Daily Journal DAR 9052·1999 WL 669064·15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 800·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 20776
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 30, 1999Nos. 97-55233, 97-55573California4,631 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hall, J.

Julie Biggs was an associate at a private law firm that performed the services of city attorney to the City of Redlands. Two Redlands city councilmen, James Foster and Swen Larson (the “council defendants”), allegedly threatened to fire the law firm unless the political activities of the Biggs family were stopped. Eventually, the private law firm fired Julie Biggs and the Biggs family instituted the present 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that the council defendants had violated the Biggs’ First Amendment rights. The district court granted the council defendants summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the claims of Julie Biggs, but re *992 fused to grant summary judgment on the claims of Julie Biggs’ husband and daughter.

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of the council defendants’ request for summary judgment with respect to the claims of Julie Biggs’ husband and daughter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse. We have jurisdiction to consider Julie Biggs cross-appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 , and we affirm.

I.

Julie Biggs was an attorney in the Public Law Department of Best, Best & Krieger (“BBK”), a private law firm, from November of 1988,…

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.