Gates v. Superior Court

Page 489

38 Cal.Rptr.2d 489

32 Cal.App.4th 481

Daryl F. GATES et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent Takeo HIRATA et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. B083893.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Feb. 15, 1995.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1995.

Review Denied May 18, 1995.

James K. Hahn, City Atty., Thomas C. Hokinson, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Annette Keller, Asst. City Atty., for petitioners.

Law Offices of Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., and Eric G. Ferrer, Los Angeles, Esner, Marylander, Zakheim & Higa and Billie Ann U. Higa and Stuart B. Esner, Santa Monica, for real parties in interest.

No appearance for respondent.

TURNER, Presiding Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, Daryl F. Gates, Matthew Hunt, Ronald Frankel, Ronald Banks, Paul Jefferson, and Bob Hansohn, all former or present senior commanders in the Los Angeles Police Department ¹ seek a writ of mandate to compel the respondent court to sustain a demurrer to two of six causes of action in the first amended complaint brought by plaintiffs, Takeo Hirata, Fidel Lopez, and Reginald Denny. We conclude that under plaintiffs' two state law causes of action, no monetary damages may be recovered for the alleged discriminatory deployment of police officers during a riot. In so holding, we determine: the Torts Claims Act provides an immunity from money damages for the failure to provide sufficient police protective services during a riot; that immunity for failing to provide sufficient police protective services applies only to monetary claims but not to requests for equitable relief; that racially neutral immunity from damages does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; and no right to monetary damages arises from a violation of the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution. Therefore, the demurrers should have been sustained without leave to amend as to plaintiffs' two state law claims and issue our writ of mandate.

II. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTS

A. Overview of Federal and State Causes of Action

The present litigation arises out of the riot which began on April 29, 1992, in Los Angeles after several Los Angeles police officers were not convicted of charges arising out of a criminally excessive force case tried in Ventura County. The operative pleadings of the three plaintiffs, the first amended complaints, all of which are essentially identical, contain six causes of action. The first four causes of action arise under title 42 United States Code sections 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 for violations of federal civil rights. Although the facts underlying the federal civil rights claims are pertinent to the present case, which involves allegations of violations of state law, no issue has been raised either in the trial court or in this proceeding concerning the sufficiency of the allegations in the first amended complaint as to the first four causes of action. Those causes of action remain for resolution via: a trial; summary judgment motion; judgment on the pleadings motion; other appropriate procedural device; or settlement.

Rather, the issue before this court relates solely to the alleged violations of Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52 ² in the fifth and sixth causes of action respectively. We summarize each of the first amended complaints collectively because the material factual allegations are, aside from the identity of the plaintiffs, all the same. The first amended complaints were organized into seven separate areas of factual allegations. The seven areas relevant to our discussion are: (1) the historical setting and identity of defendants; (2) the policy of discrimination in allocation of police protection services; (3) the implementation of that policy on April 29 and 30, 1992, in the withdrawal of police officers; (4) allegations as to the role of the individual defendants in the withdrawal of police protective services and the failure to deploy an adequate number of officers; (5) plaintiffs' injuries; (6) the fifth cause of action for violations of Civil Code section 51.7; and (7) the sixth cause of action for violations of Civil Code section 52. In reviewing the factual allegations of the first amended complaint, we must accept them as true. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 831 P.2d 317.)

B. The Relevant First Amended Complaints' Allegations Concerning the Two State Causes of Action

1. The Historical Setting and Identity of Defendants.

On April 29, 1992, each defendant was a senior supervisor in the department. Their ranks and responsibilities were as follows as alleged in the first amended complaints: Chief Gates; Deputy Chief Hunt, Commander of the department's South Bureau which consisted of the Harbor, 77th Street, and Southeast Divisions; Deputy Chief Frankel; Commander Banks, Assistant Commanding Officer of South Bureau; Captain Hansohn, the 77th Street Division Commander; and Captain Jefferson. The first amended complaints later detailed their respective roles on April 29 and 30, 1992. On April 27, 1992, while the jury was deliberating in Ventura County, Chief Gates announced to his officers that acquittals could lead to "civil disturbance, rioting and looting." He made the same announcement to his officers on April 29, 1992. Further, the first amended complaints alleged defendants should have known that civil disturbances would occur in the event of acquittals in "areas composed of Black, Hispanic, and Asian citizens" and "South Central Los Angeles." ³

2. The Policy of Discrimination in the Allocation of Police Protective Services

According to the first amended complaints, defendants had adopted a policy of not training or preparing their officers because of an intent to discriminate against persons present in South Central Los Angeles "with respect to the provision of police services." Pursuant to that discriminatory intent, defendants "redirected police resources" to "areas in the City composed predominantly of Anglo populations." Despite knowledge of when the verdicts would be announced, defendants "failed to mobilize officers in the Los Angeles Police Department to respond to the same." By contrast, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was on tactical alert at 10 a.m. on April 29, 1992.

3. The Withdrawal of Officers and the Failure to Provide Police Protective Services

At 4 p.m., violence broke out at the intersection of Normandie and Florence Avenues of which defendants were all aware. ⁴ Pursuant to the aforementioned "policy of discrimination in the distribution of police resources," police protection services were withdrawn from minority communities and simultaneously deployed aggressively in "predominantly ... Anglo populations." At approximately 6 p.m. on April 29, 1992, pursuant to the aforementioned policy of discrimination in the allocation of police resources, defendants "withdrew police officers from the area ... around Florence and Normandie" avenues for the purposes of denying citizens and other persons near the intersection of "protective services." With the "withdrawal of police officers" from that intersection, a signal was given to rioters that crime "would go unrestrained." With the police withdrawal, officers were directed "not to respond" to crime near the intersection. Further, officers were ordered "not to respond to 9-1-1 calls for emergency assistance...." The reason that emergency calls were not to be responded to was for the purposes of "denying" persons near the intersection "protective services."

4. Allegations Concerning Individual Defendants

a. Chief Gates

It was alleged Chief Gates left Parker Center shortly after 6 p.m. to attend a political fundraiser and admitted there was a "willful failure to deploy police resources" and that "some people ... were going to go without police assistance...." Further, plaintiffs alleged at this time "Chief Gates had no intention to redeploy police officers in minority neighborhoods" and "officers ... remained undeployed for over six hours...." Further, it was alleged that Chief Gates had "in prior civil disturbances, including the Watts riots" withdrawn "L.A.P.D. resources" and failed "to redeploy said resources" in minority communities.

b. Deputy Chief Frankel

As to Deputy Chief Frankel, it was alleged he "assumed partial command" of the department at 4 p.m. on April 29, 1992, and with knowledge of the escalating violence, "refused to deploy or facilitate the deployment" of officers with the "intent to deny protective services" for unlawful discriminatory reasons. At 5:45 p.m., another defendant, who is not a party to this proceeding, Lieutenant Michael Moulin, the 77th Street Division Watch commander, directed department radio and computer terminal dispatchers not to "send police officers into the intersection...." Later, Lieutenant Moulin "refused to deploy and/or facilitate the deployment of police officers" throughout South Central Los Angeles with the intent to deprive "protective services to citizens ... in minority neighborhoods."

c. Deputy Chief Hunt

As to Deputy Chief Hunt, it was alleged he assumed command of the "Field Command Post" after 6 p.m. on April 29, 1992, and at 7 p.m. "ordered the withdrawal of police officers away from the intersection...." This order was made with the intent to deny those in the area of "protective services...." Further, Deputy Chief Hunt was alleged to have "refused to deploy or facilitate the deployment of police officers into surrounding minority neighborhoods throughout South Central Los Angeles with the intent to deny municipal services ... in minority neighborhoods."

d. Commander Banks

As to Commander Banks, it was alleged he was assigned as the "Executive Officer of the Field Command Post" by Deputy Chief Hunt. Commander Banks "ordered the withdrawal of police officers away from the intersection ... with the intent to deny...