Strickland v. Ujiri

Background

The court considered plaintiff Alan Strickland’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims asserted by defendants Masai Ujiri and Toronto Raptors/Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. The opinion states that Alan Strickland and Kelly Strickland were plaintiffs and that the defendants also included the National Basketball Association.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court ordered additional briefing on a narrow set of issues involving the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA). The opinion states that it was not clear from the pleadings who employed Strickland when the incident occurred. Under the CTCA, exhaustion requirements apply to certain claims against a public employee or former public employee for injuries resulting from conduct within the scope of public employment. The court noted that Strickland’s argument that the CTCA requirements applied assumed he was acting within the course and scope of employment by the County when he was injured.

The court also stated that Strickland’s injury claims appeared potentially subject to workers’ compensation laws and possibly the “firefighter’s rule,” which can bar claims based on the ordinary occupational risks of serving as a peace officer. The court further observed that, if Strickland had a viable theory allowing him to sue Ujiri despite those barriers, fairness might require Ujiri to plead counterclaims based on the same facts without first filing a CTCA claim with the County.

Order

Because the parties had not addressed these issues, the court directed them to file simultaneous briefs of no more than five pages by November 23, 2020, followed by simultaneous responses of no more than five pages by December 3, 2020. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers vacated the hearing and stated that it could be reset if necessary after the briefing. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss counterclaims and did not resolve the identified legal issues.