Law v. City of L.A. CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 2021 No. B302610Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's tort claims against the City were barred for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act's six-month claim presentation requirement, and that the denial of a judicial disqualification motion is not reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff's tort claims were barred by the failure to timely present a claim under the Government Claims Act.
Whether the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with the City that each of Law’s claims are barred because he failed to present a timely claim to the City pursuant to the Government Claims Act.”

“The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding.”

Filed 1/21/21 Law v. City of L.A. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

IVAN LAW, B302610

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 19STCV17920)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed. Ivan Law, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Scott Marcus and Blithe S. Bock Assistant City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent. ——————————

Ivan Law sued the City of Los Angeles (hereafter the City) for various torts, accusing Los Angeles Police Department officers of negligently handling the criminal investigation against him and then falsely arresting him. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend and denied Law’s motion to disqualify the trial judge. Law appeals the judgment after dismissal and the denial of his motion to disqualify. We affirm. BACKGROUND The incident that led to Law’s arrest and incarceration occurred on July 24, 2016, when Law defended himself from an attack in his apartment by shooting his assailant. Law was arrested and charged with attempted murder the day after the attack. He was arraigned on July 27, 2016 and remained in custody until July 10, 2018 when he was acquitted after a jury trial. On November 24, 2018, Law presented a tort claim to the City, which it denied on February 8, 2019 on the grounds that his claim was untimely. In May 2019, Law sued the City for negligent retention and supervision, false arrest, malicious prosecution, vandalism, slander, libel, and abuse of process. The complaint did not specify a cause of action for false imprisonment, but contained allegations that Law was falsely imprisoned. The complaint alleged that the police officers working on Law’s case negligently conducted the criminal investigation, causing Law to be falsely imprisoned for two years. Law alleged that he lost his business because of his incarceration and because the officers destroyed two of his computers that Law used for his music recording business. Law also claimed that the officers committed perjury at his preliminary hearing and trial and slandered him, by

Law v. City of L.A. CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

IVAN LAW, B302610

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DHANIDINA, J.

EDMON, P. J. EGERTON, J.

AI Brief