LEVIN v. UNITED AIRLINES

Filed 1/10/08

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION^*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Ramona See, Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

Barbara A. Levin, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Worthe Hanson & Worthe, Jeffrey A. Worthe and John R. Hanson for Defendants and Respondents, United Airlines, Inc. and Mary Lynn Anderson.

Mendes & Mount, Alan H. Collier and Mark R. Irvine for Defendants and Respondents, Argenbright Security, Inc., Gladys Block, Olympia Villafuerte Lynch, and William Aquino.

Vanderford & Ruiz, Rodolfo F. Ruiz, Heather J. Hamby and Kristen J. Nesbit for Defendant and Respondent, City of Los Angeles.

[The following INTRODUCTION and FACTUAL BACKGROUND sections are certified for publication]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Barbara Levin (plaintiff) arrived at the United Airlines, Inc. (United)^[1]terminal at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) 20 minutes before the scheduled departure of her flight to Vancouver. A series of contentious exchanges ensued between plaintiff, on the one hand, and personnel from United, Argenbright Security, Inc. (Argenbright), and the Los Angeles Airport Police, on the other, during which exchanges plaintiff admittedly made at least three separate references to a bomb in her luggage. The incident culminated in plaintiffs arrest for making a false bomb report, although she was never formally charged with a crime.

Plaintiff sued United, Argenbright, the City of Los Angeles, and several individuals alleging nine causes of action arising from the incident and her arrest. The jury returned a verdict in favor of each defendant and against plaintiff on all of her claims.

On appeal, plaintiff challenges, inter alia, the trial courts modified jury instruction on probable cause to arrest, contending that the erroneous modification prejudicially affected the outcome of the verdicts on her claims based on false arrest.In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that a false statement to airport personnel or peace officers about a bomb in luggage, even if not seriously made or understood, can be the basis for a violation of Penal Code section 148.1, subdivision (a) (section 148.1, subdivision (a)). Therefore, the trial court did not err when it modified the probable cause jury instruction because the modified instruction accurately stated the applicable law governing probable cause to arrest andthe crime of making a false bomb report. Any claimed deficiency in other aspects of the instruction did not prejudicially affect the verdicts.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs Description of the Incident^[2]

As part of a planned scuba diving trip, plaintiff purchased a ticket on United from LAX to Vancouver, British Columbia. From Vancouver, she would take a connecting flight on a Canadian airline to Port Hardy, from where the dive boat would leave. Her United flight was scheduled to depart on Saturday, August 21, 1999, at 12:40 p.m.

The morning of her United flight to Vancouver, plaintiff left home between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and arrived at Lot B^[3]an hour and a half before her 12:40 p.m. scheduled departure time. Because Lot B was crowded, it took about a half hour to find a parking space. Plaintiff parked a long distance from where the shuttle to LAX left, and it took five to ten minutes to walk to the shuttle. She carried her purse, a metallic kind of grey-looking briefcase-sized bag containing about $5000 worth of underwater camera equipment that [she] had rented, and a big dive bag which look[ed] like . . . a lumpy duffel and . . . ha[d] various compartments for various types of dive gear. She waited 10 minutes for the shuttle, and it took another 10 minutes for the shuttle to travel to the United terminal at LAX.

Plaintiff exited the shuttle at Terminal 8, but soon discovered that her United flight would be departing from Terminal 7. She walked as fast as she could to Terminal 7, where she saw a long line at the ticket counter. Realizing that she would miss her flight if she waited in line, plaintiff approached a United representative and inquired, Excuse me. I have 20 minutes to catch my flight. Can you help me? The United representative looked at the line snaking out towards the door and informed plaintiff, Yep, youre going to miss it. Plaintiff asked if there was anything the representative could do, to which the representative replied, Everybody is late. Plaintiff then asked if she could check her bag at the gate and the representative said, Yes.

Plaintiff proceeded to the security screening area in Terminal 7 (screening area), and put her purse and camera case through the x-ray machine. But when she lifted her dive bag to put it through, she saw a plastic template at the front of the machine that she had never seen before. Because her dive bag would not fit through the template, plaintiff lifted the bag off, and as [she] did so, Argenbright [employee] . . . Ralph Lopez [(Lopez)] came over to [her] and said, You have to check it back at the ticket counter, and pointed back to the counter. Plaintiff looked at her watch; it was approximately 12:20 p.m.

Plaintiff approached a United representative stationed outside the screening area who helped her obtain a luggage cart, and plaintiff then proceeded back to the ticket counter. Plaintiff went right up to the ticket counter, ignored the line, . . . and kind of barged in. She informed the ticket agent that she had only 15 minutes to make her flight and presented her ticket. The agent responded, No. You only have ten minutes before your flight, and its too late. The bag wont make it through the conveyor. Plaintiff asked about the next flight to Vancouver and learned that it arrived in Vancouver too late for her to make the connecting flight to Port Hardy. Plaintiff then asked if she could take her bags to the gate and check them there, and the agent said, Yes.

Plaintiff returned to the same screening area and walked through the metal detector with all three of her bags. As Lopez approached her, she dropped all three bags and said, Please do a manual search. Lopez replied, Its not our protocol, and started walking back to his post. As he walked away, he pointed to the ticket counter, to which plaintiff replied, I dont have time. Lopez then stated, You can take it if you want to. Plaintiff moved her bags further into the sterile portion of the screening area, beyond the exit to the metal detector, opened her dive bag, and said to Lopez, Look, no bomb. No gun. No knife. Im going to the gate. When Lopez did not respond, plaintiff inexplicablyleft the dive bag and her purse, and proceeded to the gate with the camera case.

The plane was still at the gate when plaintiff arrived, but the door to the gateway to the plane was closed. Plaintiff handed her ticket to a person at the gate who said, The plane is full. Plaintiff replied, You mean you bumped me? Because I have assigned seats already on my ticket. The person responded, No. You never checked in.

Plaintiff concluded that she had missed her vacation and was angry. She decided to return to the screening area, pick up her bags, and go home. As she was walking toward the screening area, she was approached by Lopez and his supervisor William Aquino (Aquino). Lopez said, We have been looking for you, and plaintiff countered, Now you can take all week to check [my bags] because Im not going anywhere. Plaintiff was upset, but was not yelling.

Plaintiff walked back to the screening area with Lopez and Aquino. At the screening area, Lopez admonished, You shouldnt have gone to the gate. Plaintiff replied, I did everything I could do to get you to check my bags. I even opened one of them for you. Lopez responded, That could have been a diversionary tactic. Hearing that, plaintiff threw up her hands, rolled her eyes, and said, Yeah, right. Its a bomb.^[4] No one responded.

Plaintiff exited the screening area and went to the back of the security line in an effort to re-enter the screening area and retrieve her purse and dive bag. Before she reached the screening device, three Airport Police officers took her out of line and said, Come with us. Plaintiff later determined that the three officers were Ronald Code (Officer Code), Malvarene Hayes (Officer Hayes), and Officer Castro. The officers took plaintiff, who was still holding her camera bag, [away] from the security area out of earshot of all the passengers and beyond a half a football [field] length [to] somewhere else.

None of the officers asked plaintiff what her bag contained. Plaintiff did not engage in any conversation with the officers as they walked her to the new location. After standing at the location for a few minutes, plaintiff overheard Officer Hayes say to Officer Castro, criminal trespass and criminal conspiracy. Officer Hayes explained to plaintiff that the latter comment referred to the unit that handled these types of situations.

Plaintiff saw Officer Code return to the screening area and speak with Argenbright personnel. No one, however, was speaking to plaintiff.

As plaintiff stood with the other two officers, United supervisor Mary-Lynn Anderson (Anderson) approached them. Officer Code returned from the screening area and spoke to Anderson. Plaintiff heard Anderson state her name to Officer Code, identify herself as a United supervisor, and inform him that she was just passing through. When plaintiff heard Anderson was a United supervisor, she waived her hand and said, If your agent had helped me, I would have made my plane. Anderson replied, Dont you wag your finger at me. I dont like your attitude. Plaintiff, taken aback by Andersons attitude, responded angrily, Well, if youre going to jerk me around, why shouldnt I jerk you around? Anderson advised plaintiff that plaintiff was not taking responsibility for her behavior, and had broken the two hour rule. Anderson further stated that she would not let plaintiff fly on United because she did not know what [plaintiff would] do. Anderson informed plaintiff that United could have arranged another flight for her, but that she was not going to help plaintiffother than to refund her ticketbecause she did not like plaintiffs behavior.

Plaintiff found Andersons comments provocative and inappropriate for a United representative dealing with an angry customer. She told Anderson that Anderson did not even know what happened to make plaintiff so angry. Anderson replied, Thats right. I dont know. And I dont care. I dont like your behavior now and I dont want you flying [on] my planes. Plaintiff retorted, Fine. Ill sue.^[5]

Plaintiff then asked Anderson, Look, if you have a problem with my behavior why dont we sit down and discuss it. Anderson advised plaintiff that she had already decided [she did not] want [plaintiff] flying United again and demanded an apology. Plaintiff thought for a minute and then offered, Im sorry. At that point, Anderson turned to plaintiffs unopened bag and asked, Whats this, theres a bomb? Imitating Andersons tone, words, and gesture, plaintiff answered, Yeah, theres a bomb.

Officer Hayes became angry and stated, Turn around so I can cuff you. Plaintiff exclaimed, What? in outrage. When Officers Hayes repeated her order, plaintiff queried, For what? Officers Hayes answered, For making a false bomb report. Plaintiff asked, If you want to know whats in the bag, why dont you look in the bag? Officer Hayes replied, Thats not the point.

Plaintiff raised her left hand in a stop gesture, and said, If you want me to go with you, I will. But no cuffs. Officer Hayes did not say anything, but when plaintiff raised her arm, Officer Hayes grabbed it and started twisting it around. Plaintiff reached down and grabbed her shorts. She had two police officers on each arm yankingtrying to yank each hand off. The officers were yanking plaintiffs arms trying to make her loosen her grip on her shorts, but plaintiff could not get [herself] to do it. Eventually plaintiff was handcuffed and led away.

Plaintiff was taken to the Airport Police station and placed in a detention cell. After an hour or two, Officers Hayes and Code transported plaintiff to the Van Nuys womens prison where she was strip-searched. She remained in jail from late afternoon until 11:00 p.m.

B. Defendants Descriptions of the Incident

1. Aquino

The day of the incident, Aquino was working for Argenbright in charge of security screening at the Terminal 7 checkpoint. Lopez told Aquino that an individual had come through the metal detector with an unscreened bag. Aquino approached plaintiff and advised her she had to leave the screening area and put her bags through the x-ray machine. Plaintiff informed Aquino that she was running late and did not have time to check-in her bags. Aquino advised plaintiff to speak with a United representative, and plaintiff explained that her bag was too large to pass through the template in front of the x-ray machine. Plaintiff unzipped her bag and asked Aquino to inspect it for her, but he did not recall the exact words she used. If she had used the word bomb at that point, he would have taken some action.

When plaintiff left the screening area and went up the escalator with her bag, Aquino informed his supervisor, Gladys Block (Block). Aquino picked up plaintiffs dive bag, dragged it outside the screening area to the lobby, and left it with a United representative. When he came back to the podium inside the screening area, another Argenbright supervisor, Olympia Villafuerte Lynch (Lynch), told him to meet Block upstairs. As Aquino ascended the escalator, he saw plaintiff coming toward him from the gate area.

Aquino escorted plaintiff back in the direction of the exit lane from the screening area. As they were going down the stairs, Aquino advised plaintiff that she had violated federal regulations by going through security without being screened, and that she must exit the screening area. At the exit lane, Aquino met Lynch. While there, Aquino heard plaintiff make reference to a bomb. From the context in which plaintiff used the word, Aquino understood plaintiff to be saying that she had a bomb in her bag, or something to that effect. Aquino interpreted her statement as a threat. Aquino understood from Lynchs body language that Lynch had also heard plaintiffs statement about a bomb.

At some point after plaintiff made the statement about a bomb, Aquino saw Officers Hayes and Castro arrive at the scene. Because Lynch and the officers were now involved, Aquino resumed his duties as the supervisor of the checkpoint. Aquino, however, heard plaintiff repeat that there was a bomb in her bag in the presence of the officers.

2. Lynch

The day of the incident, Lynch, an Argenbright supervisor, returned from lunch to the screening area in Terminal 7. Aquino approached her and informed her that a woman had breached security and that Block was following her. Lynch told Aquino to join Block. Lynch saw plaintiff return to the screening area escorted by Aquino and Block. Lynch told plaintiff to exit the screening area. Plaintiff went through the exit lane carrying a silver briefcase. But then she turned around and attempted to come back through the exit lane. Lynch intercepted her and told her No, you have to go through security. Plaintiff then placed the briefcase on the floor and stated that she had a bomb.

After she heard plaintiff make the statement about a bomb, Lynch immediately summoned Officer Code who was not far from her location. He arrived quickly, and Lynch probably told him what plaintiff had said. Sometime after Officer Code arrived, Lynch heard plaintiff repeat the bomb statement in his presence. After that, Lynch went back to her regular duties. Based on experience, Lynch assumed that plaintiff would be taken to jail.^[6]

3. Block

The day of the incident, Block was employed by Argenbright as a duty manager, the highest ranking supervisor at the security screening checkpoint for Terminal 7. On that date, Lynch, Aquino, and Lopez were working under Blocks supervision. Block was in her office when she heard raised voices out at the checkpoint. She left her office to determine what was happening. One of several Argenbright employees at the checkpoint told her a passenger had come through the checkpoint without being cleared. The employees pointed toward the escalator to a woman in shorts. Block saw plaintiff going to the escalator and followed her. Block never lost sight of plaintiff.

Block observed plaintiff standing near a wall at the top of the escalator. Block waited at the top of the escalator for Aquino to arrive and then they both approached plaintiff. Block and Aquino walked with plaintiff down the stairs towards the security checkpoint. At the bottom of the stairs, Block separated from Aquino and that was the last time she saw plaintiff that day. Block did not hear plaintiff make any statement about a bomb. Sometime later, however, Lynch informed Block that plaintiff was going to jail for making a bomb threat.

4. Anderson

The day of the incident, Anderson, a United supervisor, was walking from the administrative office through the lobby when she saw Airport Police officers with someone she assumed was a United customer. She just happened to be walking by. Her job responsibility at that time was to watch and observe. Anytime she would see a police officer talking to a customer, Anderson would stop to determine what was happening.

She stood 10 to 15 feet from the officers and plaintiff, and learned that plaintiff did not make a flight and that there was a security issue. She also heard one of the officers ask plaintiff, Did you really say you had a bomb? And plaintiff answered, Yes. I said I have a bomb.

At some point, plaintiff became aware of Andersons presence, waived her finger at Anderson, and asked Anderson if she was a United representative. When Anderson responded affirmatively, plaintiff said, I need you to step over here, and I need to talk to you. But one of the officers intervened stating, No, no. You dont need to talk to Ms. Anderson.

One of Andersons responsibilities was to observe passengers and make a determination as to whether they were fit to fly on United. When she observed plaintiff on the date of the incident, she determined that plaintiff was a safety risk. Plaintiff was screaming, she was yelling, [and] she was not cooperating with the police. Anderson, just didnt feel comfortable that [plaintiff] was going to calm down. And plaintiff never calmed down in Andersons presence. Based on Andersons training and experience, she concluded that plaintiff was out of control. As a result, Anderson informed plaintiff that she would not be flying on United that day. Anderson remained at the scene until plaintiff was handcuffed and escorted away.

5. Officer Code^[7]

The day of the incident, Officer Code, an Airport Police officer, was the security officer in Terminal 7. He had just returned from lunch and sat down behind the podium in the screening area^[8]to review some paperwork when Lynch called to him. He looked in her direction and walked over to her. Lynch pointed to a woman standing 15 feet from her and said, That lady said she had a bomb. Officer Code immediately walked over to plaintiff, pointed to her bag, and said something to the effect of, What did you tell them about your bag? Plaintiff replied, That I have a bomb. Plaintiff was flustered, and louder than normal. She was upset. Officer Code considered plaintiffs statement a bomb threat. After Officer Hayes arrived at Officer Codes location and took over the questioning of plaintiff, Officer Code spoke with both Lynch and Aquino about plaintiffs statement.

Officer Code was present when Officer Hayes arrested plaintiff.^[9] He assisted Officers Hayes and Castro in handcuffing plaintiff.

6. Officer Hayes

The day of the incident, Airport Police Officer Hayes was assigned to patrol the United terminals at LAX. She was relieving Officer Castro at the Terminal 8 screening station when she was approached by Block. Block informed Officer Hayes that someone had bypassed screening and that some of Argenbrights agents had been assigned to follow that person. Officer Hayes walked with Block from Terminal 8 toward Terminal 7. They observed an Argenbright agent and plaintiff returning to the Terminal 7 screening area. The agent and plaintiff went down the stairway to the screening area before Officers Hayes and Block did. On her way down the stairs, Officer Hayes encountered Lynch who told Officer Hayes that plaintiff had made a statement about a bomb.

Officer Hayes saw plaintiff standing outside the screening area talking with Officer Code. Officer Hayes spoke with Lynch briefly and then approached Officer Code, stood by him, and observed what transpired. Officer Code was trying to clarify with plaintiff what had happened and convey to her the seriousness of the situation. Plaintiff was agitated and becoming noisy.

Officer Hayes heard plaintiff say words to the effect of, I have a bomb in my bag. Plaintiff repeated the statement three or four times. Officer Hayes did not believe plaintiff had a bomb, but she arrested plaintiff for making a false report of a bomb. When Officer Hayes attempted to handcuff plaintiff, she resisted, and Officers Code and Castro had to assist in handcuffing plaintiff. It appeared to Officer Hayes that plaintiff was resisting arrest.

Officer Hayes transported plaintiff to the police station at LAX, where plaintiff was placed in a holding cell. Plaintiff was eventually booked at the Van Nuys jail and strip-searched.

C. Claims, Verdict and Appeal

Plaintiff asserted claims for, inter alia, false imprisonment and arrest. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Plaintiff challenges on appeal a modified jury instruction and various orders of the trial court.

[The following PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

section is not certified for publication]

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her original complaint asserting nine causes of action against eight named defendants. After certain law and motion proceedings, plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint naming United, Anderson, Lionel Rodriguez,^[10]Argenbright, Aquino, Lynch, Block,^[11]the City of Los Angeles,^[12]Officer Hayes, Officer Code, Detective Sergeant Durham,^[13]and Detective Olivia Vanderzander. The first cause of action for breach of contract was asserted against United only, and the fourth cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision was asserted against United and Argenbright and the City of Los Angeles. The second cause of action for defamation, the third cause of action for negligence, the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the sixth cause of action for assault and battery, the seventh cause of action for false imprisonment and arrest, the eighth cause of action for conspiracy, and the ninth cause of action for invasion of privacy were asserted against all the named defendants.

United and Anderson filed a motion to strike the punitive damage allegations from the second amended complaint, in which the other named defendants joined. The trial court granted the motion as to all the punitive damage allegations, except those relating to the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

During discovery, the City of Los Angeles filed a motion to compel a psychiatric examination of plaintiff. The City argued that plaintiff had placed her mental condition in issue and the information that would be discovered during the examination would go straight to the heart of the causation issue. Plaintiff opposed the examination on the grounds that she was not seeking any emotional distress damages beyond the usual distress associated with such an incident and that she was arrested for allegedly making a false bomb report, not for acting irrationally. The trial court granted the motion.

Prior to trial, plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiffs two prior suicide attempts and her prior psychiatric treatment and hospitalization. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the past incidents were relevant to the opinions of the parties respective psychiatric experts and that the incidents explained plaintiffs behavior on the day of the incident. Plaintiff argued that the experts could opine that she had a personality disorder without specifically referencing incidents from prior years and that to allow testimony about family abuse and prior suicide attempts would be prejudicial and an unwarranted invasion of her privacy. The trial court took the motion under submission and suggested that an Evidence Code section 402 (section 402) hearing might be necessary.

The trial court subsequently held a section 402 hearing during which plaintiffs psychiatric expert, Dr. Rosman, testified. After hearing Dr. Rosmans testimony, the trial court stated: My ruling is to deny . . . [Plaintiffs] motion in limine number 1. . . . [Plaintiffs] expert has clearly based all of his opinions in part on her pre-existing conditions and her prior medical history including the hospitalization, suicides and abuse by her father. He indicated on more than one occasion it was very important to his diagnosis. [] Further, the plaintiff has put into issue the emotional distress and her mental state by seeking those sort of damages, specifically in the trial brief on page 4 starting at line 24, the plaintiff describes in detail the sort of emotional distress damages that she is seeking in this case and pre-existing condition and prior history is all relevant to this area. And I will allow defense to ask questions in that regard.

Also prior to trial, defendants filed a joint motion in limine to exclude plaintiffs expert, Clifford Dow (Dow), from testifying as an expert in the areas of aviation security and customer service. According to defendants, Dows deposition testimony established that he lacked the necessary qualifications and experience to testify as an expert in either area. Plaintiff argued that Dows deposition testimony showed that he was qualified in both areas of expertise. Plaintiff did not argue, however, that the trial court should hold a section 402 hearing to determine whether Dow was qualified to testify as an expert on the subjects in issue. The trial court granted the motion and excluded testimony from Dow on aviation security and customer service.

The matter proceeded to an eight day jury trial. During deliberations, the jury submitted to the trial court a written question concerning the requisite intent for the crime of making a false bomb report. After discussing the issue with counsel, the trial court gave a clarifying instruction to the jury over plaintiffs objection.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants and against plaintiff on each of her nine causes of action. On June 12, 2002, the trial court entered a judgment on the verdict that provided, inter alia, that each of the defendants shall recover their costs as authorized by law. On August 8, 2002, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.

On August 22, 2002, the trial court issued an order granting, in part, and denying, in part, plaintiffs motions to tax the defendants respective cost bills.^[14] According to plaintiff, the aggregate amount of costs awarded to all defendants was approximately $35,000. Plaintiff did not separately appeal from the order denying her motion to tax costs.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that (i) the trial court erred when it gave a modified instruction in response to a jury question; (ii) the trial court erred when it ordered her to undergo a psychiatric examination and denied her motion in limine to exclude evidence of her psychiatric history; (iii) the trial court erred when it granted defendants motion in limine to exclude her expert from testifying on certain subjects without holding a section 402 hearing; (iv) the trial court erred when it granted defendants motions to strike the punitive damages allegations from the complaint; and (v) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding costs to defendants.

As noted above, the day before oral argument, after the matter had been fully briefed by all parties, United filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs claims against it had been discharged by an order of the bankruptcy court. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a letter brief in response, which she did. After considering the motion and plaintiffs response, we have determined that the motion is meritorious and dismiss the appeal as against United only.

Story continues as Part II

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

^* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION, parts B through E.

^[1] After the matter was fully briefed, United filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs claims against it had been discharged in bankruptcy. We grant Uniteds motion and dismiss the appeal as it relates to plaintiffs claims against United.

^[2] The following facts are taken from plaintiffs trial testimony, during which she described the incident leading to her arrest. The defendants descriptions of the incident, which vary in several particulars from plaintiffs description and, at times, from one another, are set forth in the subsequent section.

^[3] Lot B is a remote parking lot in which plaintiff regularly parked and from which she would take a shuttle to LAX.

^[4] The parties submitted expert psychiatric testimony explaining that plaintiff becomessarcastic under stress.

^[5] Plaintiff was a former prosecutor in Illinois and was licensed to practice law in California at the time of the incident.

^[6] As a security screener, Lynch was trained that when a passenger uses the word bomb at a screening station, the statement was to be taken seriously. When such a statement was made in her presence, Lynch was trained to call the police. She was not required to first determine whether the person making the comment was joking or being sarcastic. She did not receive any training on how to determine a persons intention in making such a comment.

^[7] There was testimony from a security consultant, Clifford Dow, which was critical of the investigative methods and the arrest. Mr. Dow was permitted to testify that plaintiff was unlawfully arrested because she did not violate section 148.1, subdivision (a).

^[8] The Airport Police officer assigned to the Terminal 7 checkpoint sits behind a podium located inside the screening area.

^[9] Plaintiff has failed to provide us with the entirety of the record. For example, there is evidence the decision to arrest was made by Sergeant Glenn Durham. Sergeant Durham testified, via a videotaped deposition, that he informed plaintiff that it was illegal to make a false bomb report and if she did it again she would be arrested. When she repeated the false report, she was thereupon arrested. The full videotaped testimony of Sergeant Durham, exhibit 17, has not been provided, notwithstanding plaintiffs responsibility to provide an adequate record on appeal. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.) We nevertheless address the appeal on the merits.

^[10] Lionel Rodriguez was another United supervisor on duty the day of the incident. He did not testify at trial.

^[11] Lynch was sued as Olympia Villafuerte. Block was erroneously sued as Gladys Black.

^[12] The second amended complaint named the City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports and Los Angeles Police Department, Airport Police Bureau.

^[13] As noted, Sergeant Durham did not testify at trial, but a videotape of his deposition testimony was played for the jury. The record does not contain a transcript of his deposition testimony, although plaintiff did attach certain pages from his deposition transcript as an exhibit to her opening brief.

^[14] Defendants had made pretrial offers to settle pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that plaintiff did not accept.