Strickland v. Ujiri

[3] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [4] NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] ALAN STRICKLAND AND KELLY STRICKLAND, Case No. 20-cv-981-YGR [7] Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL 8 BRIEFING ON MOTION TO DISMISS v. COUNTERCLAIMS; VACATING HEARING [9] 10 M SPA OS RA TI S U &JI ERI N; T T EO RR TO AN INT MO E R NA TP ; T NO AR TS I; O M NAA LP LE LEAF DKT. NO. 45 11 BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, 12 Defendants. [13] Pending before the Court is the motion of plaintiff Alan Strickland to dismiss the [14] counterclaims of defendants Masai Ujiri and Toronto Raptors/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. [15] (Dkt. No. 45.) In evaluating the pending motion, the Court requires further briefing on a narrow [16] scope of issues regarding the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”). [17] It is not plain from the face of the pleadings here who employed Strickland at the time of [18] the incident. The exhaustion requirements of the CTCA apply to a “a cause of action against a [19] public employee or former public employee for injury resulting from an act or omission in the [20] scope of his employment as a public employee . . . .” Cal. Gov’t Code § 950.2 (emphasis supplied). [21] “In contrast, when a public employee’s alleged acts fall outside the scope of his employment, ‘a [22] prerequisite claim pursuant to the [CTCA] is not required.’” Wilson-Combs v. California Dep't of [23] Consumer Affairs, 555 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1118 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Rabkin v. Dean, 856 24 F.Supp. 543 , 552 (N.D.Cal. 1994)). Thus, Strickland’s argument that the CTCA’s requirements [25] apply by definition assumes that Strickland was acting within the course and scope of his [26] employment by the County when he was injured. [27] It further appears Strickland’s claims for injury are covered by the Workers’ Compensation [28] laws and may also be controlled by the “firefighter’s rule” which would bar claims as arising from 1 || the normal occupational risks of engagement as a peace officer. See Vasquez v. N. Cty. Transit 2 || Dist., 292 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing firefighter’s rule and exceptions); Hodges v. 3 || Yarian, 53 Cal.App.4th 973, 981-982 (1997) (a member of the public, having already been taxed to 4 || provide the officer with workers’ compensation benefits, is “entitled to the benefit of the cost5 || spreading aspect of the public compensation system and should not have to pay again for injuries 6 || that are compensable in that system.”). To the extent there is a viable theory allowing Strickland, 7 || individually, to sue Ujiri in spite of those barriers to suit, equity would appear to require Ujiri to 8 || plead counterclaims on the same set of facts without the requirement of a CTCA filing with the 9 || County. 10 Given that the parties did not address these narrow issues, additional briefing is warranted. 11 || Accordingly, simultaneous briefs not exceeding five (5) pages may be filed on the above issues by 12 ||no later than November 23, 2020. Simultaneous responses not exceeding five (5) pages may be E 13 || filed by no later than December 3, 2020. 14 The hearing on this matter is VACATED. If necessary, after briefing, the Court will reset the 15 || hearing. § 16 IT Is SO ORDERED. 17 || Date: November 12, 2020 Lapone Haptelftecs— YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGE s 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE