> >
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.
Download full case here.