Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Jun 1, 1951 No. Civ. No. 18227Published

Before: Vallée

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the third amended complaint did not state a new or different cause of action from the original complaint, as the allegations of assault were merely aggravating circumstances of the false imprisonment claim, and thus the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Issues

Whether the third amended complaint stated a new and different cause of action barred by the statute of limitations.
Whether allegations of assault in a false imprisonment complaint constitute a separate cause of action or merely aggravating circumstances.

Disposition. Reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The third amended complaint clearly sets forth the essential allegations necessary to sustain a cause of action for false imprisonment”

“The matters which were alleged in the second amended complaint with respect to the alleged assault on plaintiff by Greenbaum were but statements of aggravating circumstances attendant on the commission of the alleged false imprisonment”

“We conclude that the third amended complaint does not state a new or different cause of action.”

VALLÉE, J. This is a companion case to Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 545 [232 P.2d 26].

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to an order granting defendant William J. Greenbaum’s motion to strike the third amended complaint from the files and to dismiss the action as to him. The second amended complaint was the first complaint served on Greenbaum, a police officer of the city of Los Angeles, sued as Doe Three.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is the same as the second amended complaint referred to in our opinion in the companion case. In addition to the matters mentioned in our other opinion, it is alleged that on November 14, 1948, while “incarcerated” in the jail and “deprived of his freedom, the defendant, Doe Three, acting as jailer, wantonly seized the person of the plaintiff by the throat and violently choked the plaintiff and wielded him back and forth in a fiendish and licentious manner. ’ ’ This complaint sought only general damages for the false imprisonment by the 1 ‘ defendants. ’ ’ Greenbaum’s demurrer to this complaint was sustained with leave to amend.

The third amended complaint alleged the unlawful arrest of plaintiff by police officers Doe One and Doe Two without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence, the turning over of plaintiff to police officers Fallon and Erskine, who wrongfully “imprisoned” plaintiff in the city jail on a purported charge of a misdemeanor not committed in their presence; and that at all times, while plaintiff was so falsely imprisoned, defendant Greenbaum “wilfully refused to let plaintiff secure his release on bail, upon demand therefor, but. that said defendant continued to hold plaintiff in confinement and starved him daily from morning to night. ’ ’ This complaint seeks general damages against all defendants [553]in the sum of $19,000, and exemplary damages against defendants Doe One, Doe Two, and Greenbaum in the sum of $10,000.

The motion to strike the third amended complaint from the file and to dismiss the action as to Greenbaum was based upon the ground that (1) the third amended complaint sets forth a new and different cause of action as to this defendant, (2) the new and different cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, and (3) it is sham and frivolous.

The grounds upon which the motion was based are without merit.

Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief