Jackson v. City of Redwood City
Filed 2/8/07 Jackson v. City of Redwood City CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
KAREN JACKSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF REDWOOD CITY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A112275 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV 439757) |
Introduction
Plaintiffs and appellants Karen Jackson, Sherese Jackson and Nickolas Jackson appeal in propria persona from a judgment of the San Mateo County Superior Court entered in favor of defendant and respondent City of Redwood City (City), and from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent County of San Mateo (County), following the trial court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment.[1] In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the City and the County improperly disclosed confidential information pertaining to their receipt of public assistance. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Karen Jackson contacted the City's Fair Oaks Community Center (Center) for food and housing assistance, that following this contact the City contacted the County and Shelter Network, Inc., and that during these communications confidential information regarding plaintiffs was shared, invading plaintiffs' privacy in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 10850 and 10850.2 and Civil Code section 1798.24.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend the court erred in granting summary judgment. We shall affirm.
Statement of the Case
On June 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed a complaint for personal injury against the City, the County, and Shelter Network, Inc. Although confusing, the complaint essentially alleged that the City and the County had improperly disclosed confidential information pertaining to plaintiffs' public assistance. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Karen Jackson met with Betsy Reyes, a human services specialist with the Center's information and referral program. Neither Karen nor Sherese Jackson completed any consent forms authorizing Reyes to make any contact with other persons or agencies about plaintiffs' receipt of public assistance. Following this meeting, Reyes contacted the County and Shelter Network, Inc. and during those communications, confidential information regarding plaintiffs was allegedly related and received in violation of plaintiffs' privacy rights and in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 10850 and 10850.2 and Civil Code section 1798.24.
On August 26 and August 30, 2004, the trial court overruled demurrers filed by the County and the City to the complaint. On September 3, 2004, the County filed its answer. On September 27, 2004, plaintiffs requested that Shelter Network, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice from the action. Plaintiffs sought to take the City's default on the ground the City had not timely answered the complaint. The trial court denied plaintiffs' request for a prove up hearing, finding that the City had not received statutory notice of the hearing. The City filed its answer on October 12, 2004. On October 12, 2004, following a case management conference at which plaintiffs did not appear, the case was ordered to judicial arbitration. The arbitration was conducted on February 9, 2005, and the arbitrator entered his award denying plaintiffs' claims and awarding the City and the County their statutory costs of suit. Plaintiffs sought a trial de novo under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1141.20 and California Rules of Court, former rule 1616 (now rule 3.826).
The City served Karen and Sherese Jackson with a notice of deposition for May 3, 2005. After rescheduling the deposition at plaintiffs' request, the City received a letter suggesting plaintiffs might not appear for the June 1, 2005 depositions, and on May 31, 2005, received a fax from plaintiffs indicating that they would not attend, as they wanted to be represented by an attorney.
On June 6 and 7, 2005, the County and the City filed their respective motions for summary judgment, contending that the complaint lacked merit and was barred by the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 815 et seq.) and Welfare and Institutions Code section 10850.
On July 19, 2005, the City moved to compel the depositions of Karen and Sherese Jackson and for sanctions. On August 15, 2005, the day before the hearing on the motions to compel, plaintiffs filed opposition to that motion. Plaintiffs failed to appear at the August 16, 2005 hearing, and on that date the trial court granted the motion to compel and awarded monetary sanctions and reasonable attorney fees (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (a), 2023.010, 2025.450, subd. (c)(1)).
Plaintiffs filed no opposition whatsoever to the motions for summary judgment. On August 26, 2005, following a hearing at which plaintiffs did not appear, the trial court adopted its tentative ruling and granted the County's and the City's summary judgment motions. In granting summary judgment, the court found that the City and the County had each â€
