Gutierrez v. City of Oakland

Full title: JOHN L. GUTIERREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF OAKLAND…

Court: Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Three.

Date published: Oct 22, 2003

A099555 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2003)

Opinion

A099555.

10-22-2003

JOHN L. GUTIERREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF OAKLAND et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Corrigan

Defendants City of Oakland and Oakland Police Department Chief Richard Word appealed from an order denying their special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute.) The matter was fully briefed on appeal.

Plaintiffs Oakland Police Officer Association (OPOA) and former officers John Gutierrez and Devin Underwood filed a complaint in the trial court seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and asserting an enforceable right under Penal Code section 832.7 to prevent defendants from disclosing confidential personnel information. The complaint detailed disclosures to the press by unnamed sources regarding the police departments investigation of Gutierrez and Underwood for alleged misconduct. The complaint also related comments made to the media by Chief Word and Oakland Police Sergeant George Phillips as to the seriousness of the allegations against the officers. Defendants filed their special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, contending that plaintiffs lawsuit sought "to abridge the right of the Police Chief of the City of Oakland to speak out on an issue of public interest—alleged misconduct by Oakland police officers and the Citys response to it." Defendants also argued that plaintiffs could not prevail on their claims because Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 apply only to discovery requests by litigants for information in police personnel records.

Plaintiffs asserted that it was the release of confidential information from their personnel files that was at issue, not public comments by police officials. Plaintiffs also contended they were likely to prevail on their claim, arguing that injunctive relief to enforce their confidentiality rights under Penal Code section 832.7 is appropriate.

Two court days before oral argument was scheduled on this matter, defendants requested, without explanation, that we dismiss the appeal pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 20(c).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

We concur: McGUINESS, P.J., POLLAK, J.