Opinion ID: 1269651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment on the State Law Negligent Training Claim

Text: Mendez contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the County on her state law negligence claim for failing to train police officers on how to legitimately obtain the consent of individuals brought to the police station. Under California law, a public entity generally is immune from suit for injuries arising from acts or omissions of the entity or its employees. See Cal. Gov't Code § 815(a). California law creates an exception, however, in cases where the public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, and the public entity is liable for causing that kind of injury while failing to exercise reasonable diligence in discharging its duty. See Cal. Gov't Code § 815.6. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, concluding that the plaintiffs had present[ed] virtually no evidence regarding the County's training of its deputies. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm. The County first argues that it is immune from suit under California Government Code § 815(a), because no statute creates a mandatory duty of care as to the training of its employees. As the County admits, however, it makes this argument for this first time on appeal, after having conceded before the district court that it was under a duty to train its employees adequately, and arguing instead that it satisfied that duty. We decline to address the County's new theory of defense because it was not presented to the district court. See Wagner v. Prof'l Eng'rs in Cal. Gov't, 354 F.3d 1036, 1044 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004) (Generally, before an argument will be considered on appeal, the argument must be raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it.) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2002) (Sovereign immunity.... may be forfeited where the state fails to assert it.). Although we reject the County's immunity defense, we nonetheless affirm the district court because we agree that Mendez did not create a triable issue of fact as to whether the County failed to satisfy its statutory duty of care. Mendez argues that the guidelines and regulations that create the County's duty to train its employees are California's Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) regulations, which are promulgated under California Penal Code § 13510. These rules establish minimum standards for training of city police officers and other peace officers in California. See Cal.Penal Code § 13510(a). Mendez presented no evidence, however, that the County negligently failed to comply with the POST regulations on training. Instead, she focused on showing that the County did not train its employees on how to obtain implied consent from a witness and offered the testimony of an expert witness from the Detroit Police Department, who asserted that an adequate training program should include training on obtaining implied consent. None of this evidence established that the POST regulations or any other statute create a duty to train employees on implied consent or that the County negligently failed to fulfill that duty. We affirm.