Kelvin Gant v. County of Los Angeles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “[u]nder California law, public entities are liable for actions of 4 their employees within the scope of employment,” including for Bane Act claims
• requiring a plaintiff to show that the government’s “omission amounts to deliberate indifference”
• affirming a grant of summary judgment 18 as to a Monell claim because an omission in a policy’s guidelines alone is not enough to establish 19 liability
• discussing public entity immunity in the context of a Bane Act claim
• explaining in its Bane Act analysis that 10 “[u]nder California law, public entities are liable for actions of their employees within the 11 scope of employment” to the extent their employees are liable
• further 5 investigation warranted because there was a 7-inch height and a 120-pound weight difference between 6 the arrestee and the subject of the warrant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).