 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanders v. Leavitt8/31/2001
compliance is the oversight of an adversarial situation. Finally, review by the district court of any decisions made by the monitoring panel ensures the correctability of error on appeal. In sum, the monitoring panel assists a judicial official, the federal district court, and acts under the court's direction and authority in performing functions closely tied to the judicial process.
As far as we can tell, plaintiff is requesting damages from the monitoring panel for negligence committed in its official quasi- judicial role. Furthermore, there is nothing in the complaint suggesting that the monitoring panel acted outside of its authority or quasi-judicial capacity. As a result, we conclude that the monitoring panel is entitled to judicial immunity from suit in this case.
Third, the trial court did not err in dismissing the attorney defendants. We find no compelling reason to conclude that the attorney defendants assumed, by virtue of representing the plaintiff class in the case of David C., a duty to ensure Breanna's physical well-being, either to protect her and the other members of the class from physical abuse inflicted by third parties such as the Widdisons, or to ensure that she received proper medical care. Counsel did not assume a role in loco parentis. Moreover, plaintiff did not provide, nor are we aware of, any authority which imposes a duty upon counsel for a plaintiff's class to protect members of the class from abuse from third parties and care for their personal needs. Even further, when invited by the court to clarify the nature of the duty owed by the attorney defendants, plaintiff failed to articulate one. Accordingly, the attorney defendants were properly dismissed.
B. The Division of Child and Family Services
The only defendant not yet accounted for, the Division of Child and Family Services, was also appropriately dismissed. We review the trial court's order granting summary judgment for correctness. See, e.g., Price Dev. Co. v. Orem City, 2000 UT 26, 9, 995 P.2d 1237, 1242. We conclude that the trial court did not err in granting DCFS's motion for summary judgment.
The district court concluded that DCFS was immune from suit under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-1 to - 38 (1997). In Ledfors v. Emory County School District, 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993), we explained the analytical framework for determining whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act. The Ledfors framework suggests a three-step inquiry:
First, was the activity the entity performed a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 63-30-3? Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-3 (1989) [now codified at section 63-30-3(1)]. Second, if the activity was a governmental function, has some other section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? Third, if the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in this case? Id. at 1164.
The district court, using Ledfors as a guide, properly applied the Act to the facts of this case in granting the motion for summary judgment. First, DCFS's actions or alleged failure to act through the individuals assigned to Breanna's case, Ms. Pamela Goodrich and her assistant, constitute a governmental function. The Act defines "governmental function" as:
any act, failure to act, operation, function, or undertaking of a governmental entity whether or not the act, failure to act, operation, function, or undertaking is characterized as governmental, proprietary, a core governmental function
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|