Defendant workers’ compensation insurers filed a writ of mandate that challenged the order of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which overruled defendants’ demurrer in plaintiff doctor’s action for interference with economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, malicious prosecution, and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1961-1968.
Plaintiff doctor was arrested for presenting multiple claims for the same injury after defendant workers’ compensation insurers reported him to the district attorney and department of insurance for insurance fraud for overbilling. Plaintiff was acquitted and then filed a complaint against defendants for bad faith reporting. Los Angeles employment lawyers can assist you in employment law cases.
The lower court overruled defendants’ demurrer, and the court denied defendants’ petition for a writ of mandate. The supreme court issued an order to the court to issue an alternative writ. The court granted the writ of mandate and sustained defendants’ demurrer with respect to the claims for interference with economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium because defendants were exempt from liability based on the immunity provisions of Cal. Ins. Code § 1877.5 and Cal. Ins. Code § 47. The court held that the claim for malicious prosecution survived because defendants could not claim immunity. The court declined to dispose of the claims regarding violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1961-1968, because it did not want to contravene the supremacy clause.
The court granted defendant workers’ compensation insurers’ writ of mandate and sustained defendants’ demurrer with respect to plaintiff doctor’s claims for interference with economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium, because their immune from liability. The court affirmed the denial of the demurrer with respect to the claim for malicious prosecution because defendants could not claim immunity.
Appellant pawnbroker challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied his petition for a writ of mandamus compelling respondents, police commission, board of permit appeals (board), and members, to approve his application for a transfer of his pawnbroker’s license.
The pawnbroker applied for a transfer of his license to a different street. The police chief denied the application, and the board upheld the decision. The pawnbroker appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandate directing the police commission and board and their members to approve the application. The court affirmed. The court held that the charter’s overall standards guiding the police chief and board in issuing permits to pawnbroker businesses, which affected the health, crime, policing, and welfare of the city, did not offend constitutional requirements that discretionary power be restricted by specific standards. The court held that the pawnbroker erroneously argued that the denial of his application was invalid under San Francisco, Cal., Municipal Code § 1279, which was repealed by implication after the adoption of the new charter. The court held that the board gave the pawnbroker due process and exercised its sound discretion in denying the permit after considering substantial evidence, including opinions, that the proposed business would have caused a police problem and downgrading of the neighborhood.
The court affirmed the denial of the pawnbroker’s petition for mandamus relief to direct the police commission, board, and members to approve the transfer of his license to a different street.