The California Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the Delano Union School District concerning a significant judgment against one of its employees, Charles Michael Bledsoe. The court ruled that the District was not aggrieved by the judgment, which awarded over $8.8 million to plaintiffs Davin and Edie Cano for injuries sustained in a traffic collision involving Bledsoe. This decision is crucial as it clarifies the District's liability and obligations under California law.

The case, Cano v. Delano Union School District (Docket No. F090406), arose from a motorcycle accident on April 18, 2015, when Bledsoe, driving his personal vehicle, collided with Davin Cano. At the time of the accident, Bledsoe was the District's director of child development services. The Canos filed a lawsuit against Bledsoe and Wells Fargo Bank in 2016, later adding the District as a defendant after discovering Bledsoe's employment status.

The dispute centers around whether the District is liable for the damages awarded to the Canos due to Bledsoe's actions while he was employed. The District contended that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, which requires a formal claim to be filed before suing a public entity. In 2020, the trial court ruled in favor of the District, granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, but no formal judgment was entered at that time.

Over the years, the case saw various developments, including a stipulation for a reference trial where both the plaintiffs and Bledsoe agreed to a referee determining the issues in the case. The District objected to this arrangement, arguing it had not consented to the reference, but the court ruled that the District was effectively no longer a party to the case.

After the reference trial in April 2025, the referee found Bledsoe 100% liable for negligence and established that he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment against Bledsoe for $8,832,262.05, which included damages and costs.

The District appealed this judgment, claiming it was aggrieved by the findings that Bledsoe acted within the scope of his employment, which could trigger an obligation for the District to pay the judgment under Government Code section 825. However, the court ruled that the District was not aggrieved because it had no opportunity to be heard in the reference trial, and thus the judgment did not bind it.

The court stated, “Because the District had no such opportunity in the proceeding that produced this judgment, we conclude the judgment does not bind the District in either respect.”

The ruling emphasizes that a party cannot be bound by a judgment in which it had no chance to defend its interests. The court found that the District had consistently disputed the scope of Bledsoe's employment and had no representation in the reference trial where the determination was made.

This decision has significant implications for public entities in California. It clarifies that a public entity's obligation to indemnify its employees for judgments against them is contingent on the entity's opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that public entities must be allowed to defend their interests in legal matters involving their employees.

Looking ahead, the District may still face further proceedings regarding its obligations under section 825, but for now, the court's dismissal of the appeal means that the judgment against Bledsoe stands. The court did not address whether Bledsoe was acting within the course and scope of his employment, leaving that question open for future litigation.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of procedural rights for public entities and sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future. The ruling underscores the necessity for public entities to be involved in legal proceedings that could impact their financial responsibilities.

As of now, there are no indications that the District plans to appeal the ruling further, and the related case involving Bledsoe's employment status remains pending. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal disputes involving public entities and their employees.