Jacob B. v. Co. of Shasta 3/1/06 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2006 » Jacob B. v. Co. of Shasta 3/1/06 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C049794

Case Date: 06/14/2006

Preview:Filed 3/1/06

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ---JACOB B., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SHASTA et al., Defendants and Appellants. C049794 (Super. Ct. No. 149219)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, Jack Halpin, J. Reversed with directions. Brickwood Law Office, Gary Brickwood and Monique Grandaw for Defendants and Appellants. Halkides, Morgan & Kelley, Arthur L. Morgan and Paul C. Meidus for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury awarded plaintiff Jacob B. $30,000 against defendants County of Shasta (the County) and Stephanie B. Lloyd for invasion of his state constitutional right to privacy. The

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part IV of the Discussion. 1

invasion consisted of a letter written by Lloyd, a supervisor in the County's Victim Witness Program, referring to a child molestation accusation against Jacob, which was published in a family law proceeding that concerned visitation rights among Jacob, his parents, and members of their extended family. On a motion for nonsuit, the trial court found that the letter was cloaked with the litigation privilege immunity found in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 47(b)), and dismissed all causes of action except for invasion of Jacob's constitutional right to privacy. Defendants appeal,

claiming the trial court should have dismissed the entire case. We conclude that the letter was absolutely privileged, and that the motion for nonsuit should have been granted. reverse the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A motion for nonsuit is proper when, "`"interpreting the evidence most favorably to plaintiff's case and most strongly against the defendant and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in favor of the plaintiff[,] a judgment for the defendant is required as a matter of law." [Citations.]'" We shall

(DiPalma v. Seldman (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1506, citing Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 839.) We summarize the evidence in light of that principle, which is applicable to both reviewing courts and trial courts. at pp. 1505-1506.) (DiPalma,

2

The 1993 Molestation Claim In 1993, Laura and Charles B.1 came into the Shasta County Sheriff's office to report that their five-year-old son B.B. had been molested by his uncle Jacob--Charles's younger brother who was 15 years old at the time. The investigating officer

interviewed B.B. and was of the opinion that a molestation had occurred, but the case was not prosecuted due to his young age and inability to communicate specifics about what had occurred. The County operates a Victim Witness Program (Victim Witness), which is a subdivision of the district attorney's office. On September 24, 1993, Laura applied for Victim Witness Victim Witness is authorized by law

benefits on B.B.'s behalf.

to grant compensation to a victim of any "criminal act," regardless of whether there was a prosecution or conviction. (See Gov. Code,

Download Jacob B. v. Co. of Shasta 3/1/06 CA3.pdf