Legal Opinion

Antuna v. City of Tucson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 22, 2005No. 03-16652Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Phyllis Antuna appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on her federal and state law claims arising from Defendants putting Antuna, a Tucson Policy Academy recruit, on administrative leave and ordering a psychological fitness-for-duty exam. We affirm.

Antuna concedes that under California law, Defendants are absolutely immune from tort liability arising from statements made to the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department regarding Antuna, a prospective employee. See Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 70 Cal.App.4th 494, 498, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 (1999).

Antuna did…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cecelia Yin v. State of California Daryll Tsujihara Linda Nicholson Robert Catale and Tony SunseriCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  2. Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. Montoya v. Law Enforcement Merit System CouncilCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API