## Facts

- Richard W. Katzberg was a tenured professor of medicine at UC Davis and served as Chair of the Department of Radiology.
- The University investigated alleged mishandling of approximately $250,000 in departmental funds, largely involving vendor rebates placed in radiology accounts.
- The University issued public statements about the investigation; the district attorney announced a criminal investigation.
- Katzberg was removed as department chair but remained a tenured professor and staff physician.
- Katzberg alleged the University’s actions and public statements stigmatized him and impaired his reputation and professional standing.
- He claimed a state constitutional due process “liberty” interest under article I, section 7(a) entitled him to a timely name-clearing hearing.
- He sought, among other relief, money damages directly for the alleged state constitutional violation.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover money damages directly for an alleged violation of the due process “liberty” interest protected by article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution, absent statutory authorization or an established common-law tort.
2. Whether the existence of a reputational “liberty” interest requiring a name-clearing hearing (assuming it applies) supports implying such a damages remedy.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that no action for money damages is available for the alleged violation of article I, section 7(a) in this context without statutory or common-law authorization.
- The Court rejected a general rule that constitutional violations automatically support implied damages actions.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal to the extent it allowed a direct damages claim under the state Constitution and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The Court left open the availability of non-monetary remedies (e.g., declaratory or injunctive relief) and any other viable statutory or common-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- California courts do not presume a private damages action exists for every violation of the California Constitution; the availability of a damages remedy depends on a case-specific inquiry.
- In deciding whether to infer a damages remedy from a state constitutional provision, courts consider:
  - whether the provision’s text or history indicates an intent to authorize (or foreclose) damages;
  - whether adequate alternative remedies exist (including non-monetary relief);
  - whether recognizing damages would be consistent with the provision’s purposes and with separation-of-powers and governmental-liability policy concerns.
- For a due process “liberty” claim under article I, section 7(a) based on alleged stigma and denial of a name-clearing hearing, these factors weigh against implying a damages remedy.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that article I, section 7(a) does not support an implied cause of action for money damages for an alleged deprivation of a due process liberty interest in reputation and a claimed right to a name-clearing hearing, absent statutory or common-law authority, and it directed that any relief proceed through available non-monetary remedies or other established causes of action.


Katzberg v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 29 Cal. 4th 300 (Cal. 2002)