In pertinent part, §815 of the California Government Code explicitly states that unless otherwise provided by statute, “A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” (Cal. Gov. Code §815(a) [emphasis added].) In Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal.App.4th 1077 (2004), the California Court of Appeal discussed the effect of Section 815 in the context of the plaintiffs’ negligence claim against a city and explained that “direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care….”

Yet, the FAC contains no allegations which could implicate the County’s negligence. Barrilleaux’s negligence claim is accordingly unsupportable because: (a) § 835 is the sole statutory basis for a claim imposing liability on a public entity based on the condition of public property [Brenner, 113 Cal.App.4th at 438]; (b) the County cannot be held liable for common law negligence, as all California public entities are entitled to sovereign immunity unless liability is permitted by statute [Cal. Gov. Code § 815; Davis, 42 Cal.App.4th at 703], and (c) there is no indicia of negligence by any County employee. For these reasons, the County is entitled to summary judgment on Barrilleaux’s negligence claim.

It is, of course, a basic rule of the modern Act that governmentliability does not exist by commonlaw, but must be premised in legislation. As Government Code § 815 states: “Except as otherwise providedby statute ... [a] public entity is not liable for an injury ...” Given this fundamental rule, a clear definition of “statute” was plainly required. Section 811.8’s definition was adopted for that purpose, not to narrow the scope of § 905, subd. (a)’s direction that tax refund claims be governed by tax laws rather than the Government ClaimsAct. Of course, the goal of the 1959 legislation was a uniform claiming process, but not as to taxes: Provisions governing claims for refund of taxes, assessments,fees, etc. ... are frequently integrated with special procedures governing the assessment, levy and collection of revenue.

) This principle is well settled, as commonlaw claims against governmententities were abolished by the Legislature in the 1963 reaction to Muskopf’s abrogation of the medievalrule of broad government immunity. Government Code § 815 states: Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) A public entity is notliable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Statutory Bases for Several State Law Claims for Relief, Which Are Required to Overcome Grant of Governmental Immunity Plaintiffs’ fifteenth claim for relief for false arrest and imprisonment, sixteenth claim for relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress and seventeenth claim for relief for negligence against the County are subject to dismissal because the complaint fails to allege a statutory basis for the County’s liability. California Government Code Section 815(a) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. [Emphasis added.]”

California statute holds “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 815. This provision “abolishes all common law or judicially declared forms of liability for public entities.”

Jiles v. City of Pittsburg, No. C 12- 3795 MEJ, 2012 WL 6096580, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 815(a)); see also Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co. 155 Cal. App. 3d 405, 409 (1984) (“sovereign immunity is the rule in California; governmental liability is limited to exceptions specifically set forth by statute”). “As such, a claim of direct liability against a public entity for negligence must be based on a specific statute creating a duty of care . . . .” Jiles v. City of Pittsburg, 2012 WL 6096580, at *7.