L.A. Cleared of Liability in McDonald’s Holdup : Police: Judge rules against the former Sunland manager who said officers should not have waited to intervene after robbers broke in.

A judge Wednesday cleared the city of Los Angeles of any liability to the former manager of a McDonald’s in Sunland because a police surveillance unit watched without acting for more than 30 minutes while robbers held her at gunpoint.

Granting a defense motion at the close of the plaintiff’s case, Glendale Superior Judge Charles W. Stoll issued a directed verdict in favor of the city and dismissed the jury.

Deputy Los Angeles City Atty. Don Vincent said Stoll concurred in his two arguments that the law exempts police officers from liability and that the manager’s 911 call for help did not create a binding relationship.

“He bought all of the facts we had in the motion,” Vincent said.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Christopher Hiddleson, said he would consider appealing the decision.

“It’s really up to my client,” Hiddleson said. “This happened rather suddenly. We’re still digesting the judge’s ruling.”

The former McDonald’s manager, Robbin L. Cox, 26, of Pasadena alleged in her lawsuit that the Police Department’s Special Investigations Section, which had followed four suspected robbers to the Foothill Boulevard restaurant Feb. 11, 1990, should have stopped them before they broke in and, failing that, should have tried to stop the robbery in progress.

When she saw the men attempting to break in, Cox called 911 and was told a police car would be dispatched. But the leader of the 22-man undercover surveillance team called off the response by uniformed officers and ordered his men to wait until the four robbers emerged from the restaurant.

While the officers waited, the robbers blindfolded Cox and threatened her with death if she did not open the safe.

In gunfire that erupted as the robbers left the restaurant, three of them were fatally shot by officers and the fourth was wounded and captured. He is serving a 17-year prison sentence. It was later determined that their weapons were pellet guns.

A jury in a federal lawsuit awarded the surviving robber and members of the dead men’s families $44,000 on the grounds that members of the SIS team acted without cause when they opened fire.

In addition, the FBI is continuing to investigate possible civil rights violations in the shooting, an FBI spokesman said.

Cox’s lawsuit alleged that the police had a duty to come to her aid after she called 911 and that the SIS team breached that duty by calling off the uniformed response.

The official LAPD investigation of the incident concluded that the SIS team leader, Detective Brian Davis, learned of the 911 call only three minutes before the men got inside and that he decided not to rush them immediately because not all of them could be seen.

In testimony Wednesday, former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates conceded that Cox had reason to expect a police response, but defended the judgment of the SIS leader that rushing the four robbers inside the restaurant could have set off shooting that would have increased the danger to Cox.

Before putting on any witnesses, Vincent argued Wednesday that a 911 call does not create a special police responsibility to the caller.

He also cited the section of the state government code that says “neither a public entity nor public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody.”

Defense attorney Hiddleson said he thought it was odd the motion was granted because another judge had denied an identical motion, citing both points, before the trial began. The state Supreme Court declined to review the city’s petition seeking to overturn that ruling.

Hiddleson said he thought his case had established significant disputes of fact that could only be decided by a jury.

For example, he said, although the police said the robbers broke in only three minutes after the SIS officers learned of the 911 dispatch, Cox testified that it was 15 minutes after the call when the robbers got inside.

“That’s a pretty significant factual conflict,” he said.

Both attorneys said they talked to jurors afterward and found them divided on the case.

“They had varying opinions,” Vincent said. “A lot for us. Some for him.”