Gilbert Kelly Wins Civil Rights Motion for Summary Judgment

Los Angeles, CA, January 22, 2010 --(PR.com)-- Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP recently won Summary Judgment in a federal civil rights case. The case arose from an alleged “search” that was claimed to be unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (illegal search and seizure) and the 14th Amendment (equal protection). Suit was filed in United States District Court by a city firefighter who was the subject of an internal affairs investigation.

Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP partner Jon Tisdale was asked to defend an attorney who was routinely retained by the City as an independent contractor to direct internal affairs investigations; the City, the fire chief and the battalion chiefs were separately represented. The conduct alleged to be a “search” was odd, to say the least. The plaintiff was suspected of misuse of sick time, and subrosa video appeared to support this suspicion. In an interview conducted by Mr. Tisdale’s client, plaintiff claimed to be in possession of certain building materials; if the explanation offered by plaintiff was true, he would be completely exonerated and he was told so. Nonetheless, he refused to voluntarily produce the materials. He was then ordered to produce them by going inside his home and bringing them out for his superiors to confirm. No one searched or entered his home. No one set foot on his property, as the fire department employees watched from a parked vehicle. This was the alleged violation of plaintiff’s civil rights.

Jon Tisdale and GKC&J partner Jennifer Calderon wrote a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of their client. The Summary Judgment was primarily based upon the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, which essentially holds that if the actions alleged to have constituted a violation were not of the type that persons similarly situated would and should know that such conduct was clearly illegal, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, if applicable, the doctrine of qualified immunity is not just a defense to the conduct, it is actually complete immunity from suit altogether. Interestingly, after all of the briefing had been completed and filed, by coincidence, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision touching on the qualified immunity doctrine just ten days before the Motion for Summary Judgment, slightly altering the test of determining whether the doctrine applied. The Motion for Summary Judgment was argued by Jon Tisdale, before the Honorable Manuel Real. The motion (and the similar motion on behalf of the City co-defendants) was granted. The matter is currently briefed and awaiting hearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

###