Kim v. Walker
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 159, 208 Cal. App. 3d 375, 256 Cal. Rptr. 223 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made in the proper discharge of an official duty, or in any judicial or other official proceeding authorized by law, are protected by an absolute privilege and cannot form the basis for a defamation action.
Facts:
- John Kim was involved in an ongoing marital and child custody dispute with his ex-wife.
- Kim was previously arrested on charges of molesting his minor daughter, which he denied.
- Gonzalo Pineda, the ex-wife's attorney, communicated with parole agents about the molestation allegations against Kim.
- Gene Axelrod, a deputy county counsel, disseminated juvenile court records and police reports containing the allegations in connection with visitation rights evaluations.
- Fred Walker, Kim's parole agent, used a police report about the molestation allegations during a parole revocation hearing.
- As a result of efforts by some of the defendants, Kim was imprisoned for a parole violation two days before a court-ordered child visitation was scheduled to begin.
- John Harrel, a deputy attorney general representing Walker, made statements in court hearings related to the matter.
Procedural Posture:
- John Kim filed a complaint for defamation in California superior court (trial court) against Fred Walker, Gonzalo Pineda, Gene Axelrod, and others.
- Kim amended his complaint to add John Harrel as a defendant.
- The defendants filed demurrers, arguing that Kim's complaint failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers of Walker, Harrel, Axelrod, and Pineda without leave to amend.
- Following the sustained demurrers, the trial court entered an order of dismissal against Kim.
- Kim (appellant) appealed the order of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are allegedly defamatory statements made by government officials and attorneys during the course of judicial proceedings, parole revocation hearings, or other official duties protected by absolute privilege under California Civil Code section 47?
Opinions:
Majority - Croskey, J.
Yes. The allegedly defamatory statements are protected by absolute privilege. Under California Civil Code section 47, a publication made in any judicial or other official proceeding authorized by law is absolutely privileged. All of the complained-of statements by the defendants—parole agent Walker, deputy attorney general Harrel, deputy county counsel Axelrod, and opposing counsel Pineda—were made within the context of their official duties or during judicial and administrative proceedings. For example, Walker's actions were part of his discretionary duties as a parole officer and are immune under Government Code sections 845.8 and 821.6. Harrel's statements were made as an attorney representing a client in court. Pineda's communication to parole agents was intended to prompt official action, and his use of a police report occurred within a family court proceeding. As all actions were privileged, they cannot be the basis for a defamation claim.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the broad scope of California's absolute privilege for communications made in judicial and official proceedings. It clarifies that the privilege extends beyond statements made in a courtroom to include communications with administrative agencies designed to prompt official action. The ruling serves as a powerful shield for public employees and attorneys, protecting them from defamation liability for actions taken within the scope of their duties, even if alleged to be malicious. This reinforces the public policy of encouraging uninhibited communication in legal and administrative contexts without fear of retaliatory litigation.
