Court Opinion

ID: 9904727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 17:00:50.069775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:23.551936
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       FILED
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         NOV 27 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PAOLA FRENCH; RUSSELL FRENCH,                  No.    22-55571

               Plaintiffs-Appellees,           D.C. No.
                                               5:20-cv-00416-JGB-SP
 v.                                            Central District of California,
                                               Riverside
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
                                               ORDER
               Defendant-Appellant,

and

SALVADOR SANCHEZ, in his official
capacity and in his individual capacity;
DOES, 1-10, inclusive,

               Defendants.

Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      The Memorandum filed on October 16, 2023, Dkt. Entry 49, is amended as

follows:

   1. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 5, replace <Under California’s scope
      of employment rule, “[a] nexus must exist between the employment and the
      tort if the employer is fairly to be held liable.” Xue Lu v. Powell, 621 F.3d
      944, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2010).> with <Under California’s scope of
      employment rule, the employee’s tortious conduct must have “a causal
      nexus to the employee’s work.” Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l
      Hosp., 12 Cal. 4th 291, 297 (1995). “The nexus required for respondeat
      superior liability—that the tort be engendered by or arise from the work—is
      to be distinguished from ‘but for’ causation,” and the California Supreme
      Court “[has] used varied language to describe the nature of the required
      additional link (which, in theory, is the same for intentional and negligent
         torts): the incident leading to injury must be an ‘outgrowth’ of the
         employment; the risk of tortious injury must be ‘inherent in the working
         environment’ or ‘typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise [the
         employer] has undertaken.’” Id. at 298 (internal citations omitted) (second
         alteration in original).>.

      2. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 12, delete <We have recognized that
         California’s scope of employment rule is significantly broader than the
         traditional rule. See Xue Lu, 621 F.3d at 948.>.

         With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel

rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.

         The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no

judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P.

35.

         The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are

DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted.

                                            2