Johnson v. County of Fresno
Filed 7/13/06 Johnson v. County of Fresno CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| CHRISTINA JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant and Respondent. |
F047316
(Super. Ct. No. 02CECG01000)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark W. Snauffer, Judge.
Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Andrew B. Jones; Law Office of John K. Ormond, John K. Ormond, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Michael G. Woods and Deborah A. Byron for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Procedural History
This case has been before us previously and resulted in a published opinion. In the prior appeal, we held that Government Code[1] section 825.2 permits a public employee to seek indemnification in a tort action for a stipulated judgment where an employee alleged to have committed acts of sexual misconduct is denied a defense on the ground that the employee acted outside the scope of employment. We also held that the right of indemnification could be assigned to the plaintiff, placing the plaintiff in the same shoes as the employee. (Johnson v. County of Fresno (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1087 (Johnson I).) In Johnson I, we set forth a summary of the procedural history and we borrow from it here.
â€
