Corporate defense attorney
Defendants, city and council, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found in favor of plaintiff applicants on their 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims and their petition for administrative mandate seeking reinstatement of the planning commission's permit approval pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5.
Plaintiff applicants sought permits to build a two-unit condominium. The planning commission's approval was reversed by defendant council. Plaintiffs filed an action against defendants, city and council, for administrative mandate under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5 and violations of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. The trial court ordered defendant city to reinstate the commission's approval, and awarded plaintiffs damages and attorney fees on their § 1983 claim. The corporate defense attorney reversed and remanded. The court found that plaintiffs did not receive a fair hearing because a council member had a conflict of interest, the plaintiffs were not afforded notice or opportunity to be heard on two issues, and defendants exhibited bias. The appropriate remedy was another hearing before defendant council, without the vote of the disqualified member. The court determined that plaintiffs did not state a procedural or substantive due process violation under § 1983. Plaintiffs did not have a federally protected property interest because defendants had significant discretion under the municipal code to impose conditions on permits, and defendants did not act arbitrarily or irrationally.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which found in favor of plaintiff applicants, holding that plaintiffs did not receive a fair hearing due to a conflict of interest and a failure to be heard on some issues, but that the proper remedy was a new hearing. Plaintiffs did not state due process violations because there was no protectable property interest and defendants' actions were not arbitrary or irrational.
Defendant employer appealed from a judgment entered in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of plaintiff motorists, in an action where plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an automobile accident in which plaintiffs' car was struck by one operated by an employee of defendant.
Defendant employee used his own car in collecting accounts and soliciting new business for defendant employer after regular hours. An accident occurred while employee was returning from driving a co-worker home, a trip that was combined with an attempt to collect on a delinquent account. Employer asserted that the accident did not occur within the scope of employment, and that the employee alone was liable for plaintiffs' injuries. The employee was performing a duty imposed by his employer and within the scope of his employment. There was evidence that the employee, to defendant's knowledge, frequently called upon customers after his regular hours, using his own car. This was sufficient to support a finding that he was authorized to do this type of work at the time the accident took place, even though the employee drove to a tavern to eat while waiting for the account holder to return home. The court could not hold as a matter of law that the trip constituted an abandonment of defendant's business; as such a diversion was reasonable. Also, evidence in the nurses' record was properly excluded, since it merely corroborated the testimony defendant sought to refute.