Paola French; Russell French v. City of Los Angeles

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAOLA FRENCH; RUSSELL FRENCH,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
SALVADOR SANCHEZ, in his official
capacity and in his individual capacity;
DOES, 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.
No. 22-55571
D.C. No.
5:20-cv-00416-JGB-SP
Central District of California,
Riverside
ORDER
Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
The Memorandum filed on October 16, 2023, Dkt. Entry 49, is amended as
follows:
1. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 5, replace <Under California’s scope
of employment rule, “[a] nexus must exist between the employment and the
tort if the employer is fairly to be held liable.” Xue Lu v. Powell, 621 F.3d
944, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2010).> with <Under California’s scope of
employment rule, the employee’s tortious conduct must have “a causal
nexus to the employee’s work.” Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l
Hosp., 12 Cal. 4th 291, 297 (1995). “The nexus required for respondeat
superior liability—that the tort be engendered by or arise from the work—is
to be distinguished from ‘but for’ causation,” and the California Supreme
Court “[has] used varied language to describe the nature of the required
additional link (which, in theory, is the same for intentional and negligent
FILED
NOV 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
torts): the incident leading to injury must be an ‘outgrowth’ of the
employment; the risk of tortious injury must be ‘inherent in the working
environment’ or ‘typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise [the
employer] has undertaken.’” Id. at 298 (internal citations omitted) (second
alteration in original).>.
2. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 12, delete <We have recognized that
California’s scope of employment rule is significantly broader than the
traditional rule. See Xue Lu, 621 F.3d at 948.>.
With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel
rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P.
35.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are
DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted.

-- 2 of 2 --