Hyde v. City of Glendale
Filed 5/23/06 Hyde v. City of Glendale CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
HYDE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF GLENDALE et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B181033 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC037288) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David M. Schacter, Judge. Affirmed.
Park & Associates and Kyungsoo Park; James Alexander Kim for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Scott H. Howard, City Attorney and Isaac Ortiz, Assistant City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents.
______________________________________________
During a traffic stop, it was determined that there was a warrant outstanding for the arrest of the driver. The driver was arrested. The next day, the driver submitted proof that the warrant had been recalled, and he was released from custody. The driver brought suit for false arrest. As a police officer is statutorily immune for making an arrest without malice pursuant to a warrant regular on its face, summary judgment was appropriately granted. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arose out of two incidents. On August 13, 2002, City of Glendale Police Officer Dean Bowman conducted a traffic stop of plaintiff Howard Hyde, Jr. (â€
