Procedural Posture

Appellant probation officer challenged the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which sustained a general demurrer to his first complaint and refused leave to amend. Respondent city officials argued that the statute of limitations barred the action for an employee paid under the table.

Overview

Probation officer's complaint alleged that he was employed by the city and that respondents intentionally, willfully, maliciously, and falsely issued and caused to be issued oral and written statements that he was unsuited and unqualified for duties as a probation officer. Officer argued that he attempted to state a cause of action in tort for inducing a breach of contract, and that if given an opportunity to amend he could have stated a valid cause of action. Respondents' reply was that, even if he had such a cause of action, the complaint showed on its face that any such cause of action would have been barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that because officer commenced the action three years after the event, even if permitted to amend his complaint to overcome admitted deficiencies in the statement of his cause of action, the bar of the statute would not have been avoided.

Outcome

The court affirmed the decision of the lower court.