 |
|
|
|
Copyright and Trademark Notice | Disclaimer | Revised: 8/12/99
On March 12, 1997, the California Supreme Court granted our petition for review in a case entitled County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (Schonert), No. S053930. On August 12, 1999, the Court issed its decision adopting our position. To illustrate the appellate process in action, I have collected here various materials related to the case.
I have converted the briefs and petitions that we filed to portable document format (.pdf). You can read and print PDF documents from any computer equipped with Acrobat Reader ® software. You may download Acrobat Reader ® for free from Adobe Systems. Links to documents available in this format are marked with the PDF icon.
Download Acrobat |
PDF icon |
Patricia Cordova was employed as a deputy sheriff by the County of Los Angeles. She claimed that she had been subjected to sexual harassment on the job. Her complaint alleged, among others, a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. She claimed to have suffered emotional distress damages. Cordova died in a car accident while defendants’ summary judgment motion was pending. The Superior Court asked the parties to brief the issue of what claims for damages survived plaintiff’s death. It thereafter ruled that Cordova’s representative could seek recovery of emotional distress damages on the section 1983 claim at trial. Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 provides that the damages available in a survivor's action "do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement."
The principal issue in the case is whether that provision is applicable to a claim under section 1983. As our case entered the appellate stage, the issue had been the subject of two recent conflicting decisions. Compare Garcia v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 4th 177 (1996) with Williams v. City of Oakland, 915 F. Supp. 1074 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
Because the the proceedings in the Superior Court had not resulted in a final judgment, we had to seek review through a petition for writ of mandate.
For more about the distinction between appeals and writs, and the writ process see the Appellate Counsellor tutorial called Step By Step Down the Road to a Writ of Mandate.
On March 7, 1996, the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ, and set a hearing for May 28, 1996. On May 20, 1996, the court discharged its alternative writ, and denied the petition. We then filed our first petition for review with the California Supreme Court pursuant to California Rule of Court 28.
Supreme Court
Petition for Review - First Time
August 21, 1996, the Court granted the petition, and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal to issue another alternative writ and hold a hearing.
The Court of Appeal held a hearing on its new alternative writ on November 18, 1996. On November 20, 1996, it denied the petition in a decision that it certified for publication in the official reports. The full text of the decision is available here.
On December 27, 1996, we filed our second petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
Petition for Review - Second Time
The Court granted review on March 12, 1997. We filed our brief on the merits on April 11, 1997. We filed our reply brief on July 29, 1997. See Cal. R. Ct. 29.3(a)(2).
On April 14, 1997, the United States Supreme Court started to weigh in on the subject, by granting certiorari in a case entitled City of Tarrant v. Jefferson, 682 So. 2d 29 (Ala. 1996). The Alabama Supreme Court applied the Alabama Wrongful Death Act to a claim under section 1983 that city firefighters caused the decedent's death by not attempting to rescue her from a burning house. The Alabama statute only allows recovery of punitive damages, which as a matter of section 1983 law are not available against a municipality. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981).
On December 9, 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed its writ without deciding the merits, on the ground that the Alabama decision was not sufficiently final. Click here to read the decision at FindLaw. We informed the California Supreme Court about the dismissal of certiorari by letter.
Letter to California Supreme
Court
On August 27, 1997, Protection and Advocacy, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief with the California Supreme Court. We filed an answer on to that brief on September 25, 1997. See Cal. R. Ct. 14(b).
On May 5, 1999, we filed a letter brief with the California Supreme Court containing additional authorities that were not available in time to be included in our Brief on the Merits. See Cal. R. Ct. 29.3(a).
Letter Brief with Additional
Authorities
On August 12, 1999, the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision, reversing the Court of Appeal, and adopting our position.
Copyright © 2004 Calvin House. Appellate Counsellor® and Appellate Decisions Noted® are registered marks used in commerce by Calvin House since 1995. All rights to those marks are claimed. |
Calvin House |
URL for this page: http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/memos/schonert.htm
