Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?
Case Name Ristow v. County of San Bernardino et al.
Date 07/31/2012
Note Exclusive remedy bars a lawsuit alleging assault by the San Bernardino County District Attorney because the plaintiff did not name the D.A. in his individual capacity.
Citation E053531
WCC Citation WCC 39172012 CA
Plaintiff and appellant Cheryl Ristow (Ristow) sued (1) the County of San Bernardino (the County); (2) the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office (the Office); and (3) San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos (Ramos) (the three defendants are collectively referred to as "defendants"). The FAC lists three defendants: (1) "County of San Bernardino"; (2) "San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office"; and (3) "District Attorney Michael A. Ristow reasons the Office prevailed in the trial court, because "judgment was entered against the County of San Bernardino (erroneously sued and served as San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office). "In the County's supplemental letter brief to this court, it concedes, "The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office is not a separate entity from the County of San Bernardino, but is a department within San Bernardino County. "The County goes on to write, "Since the Office is not a separate entity from the County of San Bernardino, but is a department within San Bernardino County, it stands in the same shoes as the County. "

Download full case here.