City of Victorville v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 2015 No. E064620Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the City of Victorville is not liable for failing to capture and remove dogs because the governing ordinances conferred discretion upon city employees rather than imposing a mandatory duty. Consequently, the trial court erred in overruling the City's demurrer.

Issues

Whether the City of Victorville had a mandatory duty to capture and remove the dogs that allegedly attacked the plaintiff.
Whether the trial court erred in overruling the City's demurrer.

Disposition. Petition granted; trial court directed to sustain demurrer without leave to amend.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Plaintiff cannot recover damages based on petitioner’s alleged failure to capture and remove the dogs that allegedly attacked him unless petitioner’s failure constituted the breach of a mandatory duty.”

“The governing ordinances authorized petitioner’s employees to capture or remove vicious or dangerous animals, but in language which clearly conferred discretion and did not impose any duty.”

Filed 12/15/15 City of Victorville v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO