No qualified immunity in California for Gov. torts brought under state law.

The Case: Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F. 3d 1063

California law is also clear that qualified immunity does not apply to state civil rights claims... [Citation omitted] "qualified immunity of the kind applied to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 does not apply to actions brought under [the Bane Act]"). In other words, qualified immunity is a doctrine of federal common law and, as such, has no application to Cousins' state claims, which are subject only to state statutory immunities.

See also:
Venegas v. County of L.A., 153 Cal.App.4th 1230, (2007) (quoting Ogborn v. City of Lancaster, 101 Cal.App.4th 448 (2002).

Principles of Government Tort Liability

The first applicable principle...

"[I]n California, all government tort liability must be based on statute...." (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 785, fn. 2, citation omitted.)" Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist., 202 Cal. App. 3d 1448

California - Civil Conspiracy. Last overt act tolls the Statute of Limitations

ABOUT CONSPIRACIES:  In a state law cause of action (California)

A Conspiracy is "a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. [Citation.] By participation in a civil conspiracy, a co-conspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other co conspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. [Citation.] In this way, a co-conspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors." (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511." State of California ex rel. Harris v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 144 (2006).

The Statue of Limitations...

"[w]hen liability is premised on a civil conspiracy the statute of limitations does not commence "until the 'last overt act' pursuant to the conspiracy has been completed." (Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 786; see Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1127.)

WARNING

"Public entity" immunity for misrepresentations [Gov. Code 818.8] is limited to commercial or financial transactions.

The Case:  Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782 '

The question: 
 To what extent are public entities immune for misrepresentations made by the entity or its employees under Gov.  Code §. 818.8.

Gov.  Code §. 818.8  provides that "A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by misrepresentation by an employee of the public entity, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent or intentional."

According to Johnson, and subsequent cases, the application of Gov. Code §. 818.8 is limited to "interferences with financial or commercial interest."


Subsequent Cases:

*   Adkins v. State of California (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1818.
*    Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Adoptions (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 859, 247 Cal.Rptr. 504.

RELATED ISSUE:   This immunity does not apply to contracts. See Arthur L. Sachs, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984)151 Cal. App. 3d 315


Gov. Code 818.8 does not apply to actions based on a contract which are specifically subject to liability under Government Code section 814. Citing  In Souza & McCue Constr. Co. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 508, and the legislative committee comment  to section 814.