Opinion
Case No. 2:11-cv-00419-JAM-KJN
09-10-2012
BARRY FOX, NARCISA FOX, individually and as parents and natural guardians and Guardians ad litem of ANTHONY FOX, DANIEL FOX, SAMUEL FOX AND MARIO FOX, minors, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON, R. COCKERTON, B. MCATEE, ELISA OLMO, SOKA OM, JASON WALKUP, JOY PIKE, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, JASMINE DELGADO and DOES 1 THROUGH 30, Defendants.
PORTER | SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99180 John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301 Attorneys for Defendants: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON, RICH COCKERTON, BRENDAN MCATEE, and CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA Lanny T. Winberry, SBN 85341 LAW OFFICES OF LANNY T. WINBERRY Attorney for Plaintiffs
PORTER | SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99180
John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301
Attorneys for Defendants: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON,
RICH COCKERTON, BRENDAN MCATEE, and CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Lanny T. Winberry, SBN 85341
LAW OFFICES OF LANNY T. WINBERRY
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
The Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication made by Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON, RICH COCKERTON, BRENDAN MCATEE, and the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA came regularly for hearing August 22, 2012, before the Honorable District Court Judge John A Mendez. John R. Whitefleet of Porter, Scott appeared as counsel for Defendants and Lanny T. Winberry appeared as counsel for Plaintiffs After full consideration of the moving papers, the evidence, and all documents submitted by both parties, as well as the oral argument made at the time of the hearing, the court orders the following: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to Plaintiffs Barry Fox and Narcisa Fox claim, if any, under the Fourth Amendment arising from the seizure of the Minor children Plaintiffs (but not the entry into the Plaintiffs' home) is granted; 2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to minor Plaintiffs' claims under the Fourth Amendment, and related claims of Plaintiffs Barry Fox and Narcisa Fox under the Fourteenth Amendment, arising from the removal of the children and the Motion for Summary Adjudication of Fourth Amendment claims of all Plaintiffs regarding entry into the residence each present a triable issues of fact, and are therefore denied. The Court rejects Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting the seizure was unlawful or that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars relitigation of these matters for the reasons stated at the hearing on the motion. 3. The individual Defendants SCOTT ANDERSON and RICH COCKERTON's Motion for Summary Adjudication seeking qualified immunity is denied because there are triable issues of fact which preclude the court from determining qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding; 4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to whether damages are limited by the filing of the Petition or the independent decision of the Juvenile Court to continue the detention of the minor Plaintiffs is denied, insofar as there are triable issues of fact. 5. Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication seeking to dismiss the request for Injunctive relief with respect to removing Plaintiffs from the Child Abuse Criminal Index is granted, as Defendants do not appear to be the proper parties for such relief. The Motion seeking to dismiss the Injunctive relief in all other respects is denied. 6. Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to Summary Adjudication of the claims against Defendant BRENDAN MCATEE, whether MCATEE is entitled to qualified immunity, and the Monell-type claims against Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA are taken under submission. The Court directed further briefing and allowed supplementation of evidence as to DEFENDANT MCATEE's actions in that certain contentions in regard to Defendant MCATEE's actions were first raised in Defendants' Reply Memorandum. The Court directed further briefing on the issue of the potential for both the CITY and the COUNTY to be held jointly and severally liable for the Monell-type claims. At the request of Plaintiffs, the court allowed Plaintiffs to submit supplemental evidence regarding Plaintiffs' expert qualifications and to provide evidence previously omitted inadvertently, to which Defendants may reply. Following these filings, the Court will determine whether such evidence should be considered, and issue a ruling as to these Defendants.
Honorable John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge