Discussion about attorney incorporation services

Discussion about attorney incorporation services HOLDINGS: [1]-Although the City and County of San Francisco, a charter city, had broad powers under the home-rule provision, Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (a), including the power to tax, the doctrine exempting state entities from local regulation prevented it from forcing state universities that operated parking lots in the city to collect and remit city taxes imposed on users of the universities' parking facilities because the universities' parking operations were governmental activities, given that they supported the universities' educational and clinical programs and were directly or indirectly authorized by constitutional or statutory provisions; [2]-There was no exception to the doctrine exempting state entities from local regulation for charter cities' tax-related measures. Discussion about attorney incorporation services .

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant county appealed the judgment of the court of appeal (California) directing the trial court to vacate its order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendant contended that plaintiff harasser was not entitled to be defended or indemnified for an adverse judgment against him because his acts were outside the scope of his employment.

Plaintiff deputy sheriff was assigned to a county jail. During the course of his employment, various female deputy sheriffs were hired to work in the jail. Plaintiff deputy sheriff made unwelcome and lewd comments to the female sheriffs, requested sexual favors, and touched them inappropriately. They brought a successful suit against him. He and his insurer, another plaintiff, sued defendant county, seeking reimbursement of the costs of the defending the action and the claim itself under the Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 825(a), 825.2(b), 995, 995.2. The trial court found that plaintiffs were not entitled to reimbursement because plaintiff sheriff was acting outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law, but the court of appeals reversed. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case with directions to vacate the judgment for plaintiffs and to enter judgment for defendants. Plaintiff's actions were outside the scope of his employment because the risks he presented were not fairly attributable to the enterprise of a county jail, nor did his actions serve his employer either directly or indirectly.

The court reversed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeal and remanded the case with directions to vacate the judgment and to enter judgment in favor of defendant county. Plaintiff deputy sheriff's sexual harassment of female deputies was outside the scope of his employment. Thus, he was not entitled to be indemnified or paid his costs of defending against a sexual harassment suit brought by his victims.