Ramon Almanza v. Farnham Security Inc., Kathleen Farnham
Published: Oct. 19, 2004 | Result Date: May 18, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: PC033173W Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior San Fernando
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
On Nov. 19, 1999, Ramon Almanza started working as a security guard with Farnham Security Inc. On Jan. 17, 2000, Almanza resigned his position. On Aug. 28, he applied for a job as a correctional officer with Corrections Corp. of America, a private company that owned and operated the California City Correctional Center. Under contract with the federal Bureau of Prisons, the Center housed federal inmates. The federal government required private correctional officers who staff the prison to undergo a background check. U.S. Investigations Services Inc. (USIS) investigated Almanza's background. A USIS investigator personally contacted Kathleen Farnham, vice president of Farnham Security. Kathleen informed the investigator that Almanza was previously employed as a security guard at her company, but resigned due to attendance problems. On March 14, 2001, USIS prepared a report that allegedly paraphrased the investigator's interview and stated that Almanza was fired from Farnham Security.
Damages
Almanza sought past and future lost earnings, unspecified damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Other Information
On May 18, 2004, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Almanza's claim was barred by the absolute privilege afforded by Civil Code Section 47(b) because the statements at issue were made in an official proceeding authorized by law. The court also determined that USIS's background check was authorized and required by law. Even if the absolute privilege did not apply, the conditional privilege of Section 47(c) barred the action because Almanza failed to offer admissible evidence that the statements in question were made by the defendants. Assuming that the statements were made, Almanza failed to show that they were malicious. Finally, the court held that the action was untimely because the alleged statements were made beyond the limitations period. Also, California's delayed discovery rule did not apply because Almanza knew that the investigation report existed, but did not try to find out its contents.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390