DeGrassi v. City of Glendora (March 20, 2000)
* Court: Ninth Circuit
* Jurisdiction: City of Glendora
* Plaintiff’s Job Class: City Council member
* Trial Court: In favor of City
* Ninth Circuit: In favor of City
* Issues: Indemnification, reservation o rights, free speech, section
1983
DeGrassi Facts
* DeGrassi was a member of the Glendora City Council.
* During a Council meeting in 1996, DeGrassi objected to granting
landmark status to a building on the grounds that a prior owner was a
child molester.
* The owners of the building filed a slander action against DeGrassi
(which was later dismissed).
* DeGrassi sought to have the City provide her a defense in the
slander action.
* The Council considered her request in closed sessions at which she
was excluded.
* The City offered to provide her a defense, subject to a reservation
of right and subject to its control of the litigation, including
settlement.
* DeGrassi refused these terms, claiming she had a right to control
her defense; retained counsel at her expense; and then sued for
reimbursement.
* The federal district court dismissed her case.
* The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court.
DeGrassi Analysis
* The Ninth Circuit analyzed the California Tort Claims Act.
* The court interpreted the Act as not granting "public
employees the right to control a defense offer to DeGrassi and who would
also have defended her in the slander action. The court stated that the
conflict-of-interest provisions in Gov’t. Code section 996.4 only
applied when a public entity failed or refused to provide a defense.
* On DeGrassi’s claim that the City engaged in a conspiracy to
deprive her of her civil rights, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the
district court that her claims were barred by the application one-year
statute of limitation.
* The Ninth Circuit further held that the Glendora City Counsel could
lawfully exclude DeGrassi from the closed meetings concerning her
request for a defense, since she had a personal interest in the
deliberations.
Conclusion
While Ms. DeGrassi may have gotten what was coming to her, this case
also illustrates the very limited ability of a defendant peace officer
to control his or her case or to have his or her own counsel in a case.
