Chew v. County of Los Angeles

Filed 6/26/06 Chew v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph F. De Vanon, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Paul Chew, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Thever & Associates, Shan Thever, Ronald A. Chavez and Ann Guleser for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________________

Plaintiff Paul Chew appeals from the judgment following the grant of Los Angeles County's motion for summary judgment on his complaint for false imprisonment and unlawful arrest. Chew contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment because: (1) his claim was based on false arrest, not malicious prosecution; (2) the court acted as a trier of fact; (3) he filed a proper claim under the Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) (Tort Claims Act); (4) his failure to comply with the six-month limitation period was due to County's fraud; and (5) County is estopped from relying on the Tort Claims Act. Chew further contends that application of the de novo review standard compels the conclusions that County had no viable affirmative defense and his initial arrest was unlawful due to entrapment.

As we shall discuss, it was incumbent on Chew to show a triable issue of fact regarding his compliance with the Tort Claims Act, a condition precedent to prosecuting this action. The record establishes Chew failed to carry his burden. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of County, and we affirm the judgment.^[1]

BACKGROUND

On February 20, 2003, Jennifer Long reported to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department that Chew, her accountant, was attempting to extort money from her, and she stated: She was the sole owner and president of Norcent Technology, Inc., whose business was to import electronic items from China and Taiwan and sell them to wholesale customers in the United States. On February 19, 2003, Chew approached her in the Norcent parking lot, accused her of stealing several million dollars from Norcent, and demanded $50,000 in return for not reporting any errors and going away quietly. Long refused and responded that nothing about her business was illegal. Afterward, Chew went to his Norcent office, packed some papers in a large briefcase, and left. Chew, as were all Norcent employees, was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which prohibited Chew from revealing any Norcent business information during and after his employment.

On March 10, 2003, in an e-mail to Long, Chew threatened to contact vendors and customers and to show them copies of invoices, handwritten notes, and computation data concerning Norcent. On March 17, 2003, Long obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining Chew from disclosing any information he had obtained illegally from Norcent. On March 19, 2003, during the surveillance and tape-recording of the meeting that day between Long and Chew, Chew admitted possessing Norcent financial statements. Long told him she would not pay $50,000 and offered $30,000 for the return of all documents and copies in his possession. On a notebook, Chew wrote â€