team immunity in California

2023Code, § 11172, subd. (a)), the court concluded that the statute covered ‘those mandated reporters who are involved in the identification of an instance of child abuse but do not personally report it to the authorities.’ ( Storch, supra, at p. 681 , italics added.) In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned: ‘Team immunity is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Legislature in promoting the reporting of child abuse.

2023Code, § 11172, subd. (a)), the court concluded that the statute covered ‘those mandated reporters who are involved in the identification of an instance of child abuse but do not personally report it to the authorities.’ ( Storch, supra, at p. 681 , italics added.) In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned: ‘Team immunity is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Legislature in promoting the reporting of child abuse.

2023Limitation of immunity to the person making the telephone call to the agency or signing the report would defeat that purpose.’ (Ibid.)” ( Santos, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 873-874.) “In addition, . . . courts have broadly interpreted the child abuse mandated[-]reporter[-]immunity provision to apply to certain conduct related to a reporting event.

2023Limitation of immunity to the person making the telephone call to the agency or signing the report would defeat that purpose.’ (Ibid.)” ( Santos, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 873-874.) “In addition, . . . courts have broadly interpreted the child abuse mandated[-]reporter[-]immunity provision to apply to certain conduct related to a reporting event.

2024In context, the phrase may be no more than a statement that . . . the trial court is to apply the law of the case, and in that situation the phrase is surplusage. [Citations.] In context, the phrase may be a ‘summary method of incorporating by reference directions . . . specifically indicated in the body of the opinion.’ [Citation.]” (Puritan Leasing Co. v. Superior Court (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 140, 147-148 .) Hari Hara contends the prior opinion “instructed the trial court to consider the statute of limitations issues based on the pleadings as they were” and the trial court therefore lacked jur

2023In any event, as noted in Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 520 , Fisher was addressing a situation where the plaintiff’s claim was based entirely on conduct directed at others; Beyda disagreed with Fisher to the extent it could be “understood to require that a plaintiff personally witness any act relied upon to prove hostile environment.” As Beyda explained, “a person can perceive, and be affected by, harassing conduct” in the relevant environment “by knowledge of that harassment” as well as by “personal observation.” (Beyda, at p. 521.) Further, even if not known to the

2023In any event, as noted in Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 520 , Fisher was addressing a situation where the plaintiff’s claim was based entirely on conduct directed at others; Beyda disagreed with Fisher to the extent it could be “understood to require that a plaintiff personally witness any act relied upon to prove hostile environment.” As Beyda explained, “a person can perceive, and be affected by, harassing conduct” in the relevant environment “by knowledge of that harassment” as well as by “personal observation.” (Beyda, at p. 521.) Further, even if not known to the