A recent court filing reveals a contentious legal battle involving allegations of fraud and negligence against a county's child protective services. Plaintiffs Zuri K. Colbert and Nafisah Timmons filed the complaint in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, on June 28, 2024, targeting County employees Michelle Callejas, Lisa Wullenwaber, and Zackary Kollross.
The plaintiffs allege that erroneous records maintained by the County linked them with individuals who had histories of serious abuse. These inaccuracies have caused significant emotional distress and other damages to Colbert and Timmons. The initial complaint was filed on May 21, 2021, followed by an amended complaint on June 10, 2021. The amended complaint specifically targets the County for fraud and negligence, accusing it of acknowledging yet failing to correct these errors. "These horrific and unexplainable discrepancies continue," states the amended complaint.
Colbert and Timmons claim that the County concealed critical information by redacting client names and referral IDs in the records provided to them. They assert that these actions have led to defamation of character, emotional distress, legal expenses, and ongoing fears for their safety due to stalking and hacking incidents. They are seeking exemplary damages amounting to $500,000.
Despite these serious allegations, the trial court initially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants on February 17, 2023. The court ruled that Government Code sections 822.2 and 818.8 provide immunity to governmental entities and employees from liability for misrepresentations unless there is evidence of corruption or malice—criteria not met according to the court's findings.
However, Colbert and Timmons appealed this decision. They argue that misrepresentation immunity should not apply in cases involving social services rather than financial or commercial interests—a point supported by case law such as Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Adoptions (1988). The appellate court found merit in their argument, noting that plaintiffs' alleged harms—such as threats to personal safety—do not fall under financial interests protected by misrepresentation immunity statutes.
The appellate court concluded that there is a reasonable possibility for Colbert and Timmons to amend their complaint successfully if given another opportunity. Consequently, they reversed the trial court's denial of leave to amend and remanded the case with instructions to allow amendments addressing both fraud and negligence claims adequately.
Representing themselves in propria persona initially complicated matters for Colbert and Timmons; however, they now have another chance to refine their allegations against Michelle Callejas et al., thanks to this appellate decision. The case ID is C098344 under Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2021-00301184.