Zhang v. County of Monterey
- Lucy Koh
- 5:17-cv-00007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Zhang v. County of Monterey, Judge Koh overruled Zhang’s objections to prior orders limiting due-process remedies and defining the required elements.
Jacqueline Zhang and the County of Monterey defendants; the order addressed the remedies and required elements of Zhang’s due-process claims.
What happened
In Zhang v. County of Monterey, Jacqueline Zhang objected to earlier orders addressing the remedies and required elements of her due-process claims. She also sought permission to submit more legal authority, even though the court said the parties had already had many opportunities to address those issues.
The court rejected Zhang’s argument that she could automatically recover lost wages for a procedural due-process violation. It explained that if the underlying employment deprivation was justified, damages generally would be limited to nominal damages of no more than one dollar. The court also rejected her argument that a contract could establish the required property interest in her government employment, concluding that California law governs that interest for public employees.
The court overruled Zhang’s objections to both prior orders and stated that her objections were procedurally improper. Judge Lucy H. Koh nevertheless addressed them, while the trial was still underway.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. County of Monterey · No. 5:17-cv-00007
- Lucy Koh
- June 8, 2021
Background
The court had previously issued orders concerning the remedies available for Zhang’s due-process claims and the elements she needed to prove. Zhang objected to both orders and requested an opportunity to present additional authority. The court stated that the parties had already extensively briefed the elements and remedies, and that the objections were procedurally improper. The court nevertheless considered and addressed them.
Remedies Order
The court rejected Zhang’s argument that she was entitled to lost wages regardless of the eventual result of a later hearing. Relying on Carey v. Piphus and related authority, the court explained that when a deprivation of a protected interest is ultimately justified but the procedures were inadequate, the plaintiff must show an injury caused by the procedural violation itself and cannot recover damages for the justified deprivation. The court also cited authority stating that, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, compensatory damages for a due-process violation are available only if the deprivation was unjustified on the merits; if the deprivation was later found justified, the plaintiff may recover only nominal damages. The court overruled Zhang’s objections to the Remedies Order.
Elements Order
Zhang argued that she could establish a protected property interest in her government employment through an express or implied contract. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a government employee must have a legitimate claim of entitlement grounded in state law, including an individual entitlement to a position that cannot be removed except for cause. The court stated that, under California law, the terms and conditions of public employment are governed by statutes, county charters, rules, and regulations, and that California public employees generally cannot bring claims for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing concerning those employment interests. The court overruled Zhang’s objections to the Elements Order.
Disposition
The court overruled Zhang’s objections to the Remedies Order and the Elements Order. It did not state the trial’s final verdict or otherwise resolve the entire case in this order. Judge Lucy H. Koh signed the order on June 8, 2021.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.