Denise Schmidt v. Contra Costa County
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18973
9th Cir.2012Background
- Schmidt served as a temporary Superior Court commissioner in Contra Costa since 1998; status contested as to whether she was a true temporary commissioner or acting court employee.
- She challenged an incumbent judge in the March 2004 election, losing to Judge Sugiyama.
- The Superior Court Executive Committee drafted and discussed a policy (May 2004) requiring temporary judges/commissioners/referees to be active California Bar members for five years prior to service.
- The May 2004 policy was applied prospectively and then retroactively to Schmidt’s eligibility; Schmidt was told she could no longer sit as a temporary commissioner under the new policy.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Defendants on immunity grounds; Schmidt’s remaining claims were dismissed or remanded.
- On appeal, Schmidt challenges the grant of legislative immunity to the Judge Defendants for adopting and applying the Policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Judge Defendants have legislative immunity for adopting the Policy | Schmidt contends immunity does not apply to retroactive policy | Defendants assert the Policy was a legislative act | Yes; immunity applies to adoption and application of the Policy |
| Whether the Superior Court had authority to regulate SJOs’ qualifications | Schmidt argues no California-law basis to impose stricter local qualifications | Court had authority under California Rules of Court to regulate personnel and train/qualifications | Yes; authority exists under California Rules of Court 10.601(b)(3) and 10.670(c)(4) and §71622(c) |
| Whether California-law legislative immunity applies to Schmidt’s California Constitution claims | California constitutional claims should be barred by immunity | Immunity extends to California claims as well | Yes; California legislative immunity applicable to claims asserted under California Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) (establishes scope of legislative immunity for official acts)
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (motivation irrelevant to legislative immunity; scope of policy actions)
- Kaahumanu v. County of Maui, 315 F.3d 1215 (2003) (four-factor test for legislative immunity: ad hoc vs. policy, broad impact, formal legislative character, hallmarks of legislation)
- Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 623 F.3d 945 (2010) (public policy formation vs. ad hoc decisionmaking in applicability of immunity)
- Hirsch v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708 (1995) (California legislative immunity in state context)