Anderson v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. Health & Human Servs.

1

KARI ANDERSON, MAKAYLA ANDERSON, and L.A., a minor child, by and through her Conservator WILLIAM HUNT, JR., Plaintiffs, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 20-77-BLG-SPW-TJC

United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division

February 20, 2024

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TIMOTHY J. CAVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Kari Anderson, Makayla Anderson, and L.A.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 106) and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Fault and Causation (Doc. 109), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 117). The Court held a hearing on the motions on January 5, 2024. (Doc 148.) The motions are fully briefed and ripe for the Court's review. (See Docs. 107, 110, 118, 128 132, 133, 135, 136, 139.)

For the following reasons, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Affirmative Defenses be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Fault and Causation be DENIED; and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

The individual Plaintiffs in this case are Kari Anderson (“Kari”) and her daughters, Makayla Anderson (“Makayla”), born in 1999, and L.A., born in 2011 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).^[2] (Docs. 108 at 2; 129 at 2.) Makayla is Kari's daughter from her first marriage, and L.A. is Kari's daughter from her marriage to Mike Anderson (“Mike”). (Docs. 108 at 2; 129 at 2.) Mike is also the father of M.A., born in 2003, and J.A., born in 2006, both from prior marriages. (Docs. 108 at 2; 129 at 2.)

This action was originally brought by Plaintiffs in Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County (DV 19-811), on December 20, 2019, against the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, the State of Montana, Jacqui Poe, Jane Does I-V, and John Does VI-X. (Doc. 11.) The Department timely removed the action to this Court, invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (Doc. 1.) The sole remaining defendant in this case is the “State of Montana, by and through the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services” (“the Department”). (See Doc. 100 at 1-2.)

The Department first became involved with the Anderson family in August 2012, through its Child and Family Services Division. (Doc. 108 at 2-3.) Between that time and November 2014, the Department received at least eight reports regarding the Anderson family. (Id. at 3.)

On January 25, 2015, the Park County Sheriff's Department reported to the Department, and the Department substantiated, that Kari was physically neglecting the Anderson children. (Id. at 3-4.) Jacqui Poe (“Poe”), a child protection specialist with the Department, completed a Family Functioning Assessment where she noted that, between Kari and Mike, one or both caregivers were violent, and one or both caregivers could not control their behavior. (Id. at 5.) Poe further noted in the Family Functioning Assessment that the children were unsafe, and that Kari and Mike did not have impulse control, did not have a history of being protective, did not use resources to meet basic needs, and did not recognize threats. (Id.)

In February 2015, the Department initiated an in-home safety plan whereby Kari and Mike agreed to a Voluntary Protective Services Agreement that would allow the children to remain in the home with support from the Department. (Id. at 6; 129 at 4.)

On approximately March 27, 2015, Kari provided Poe with journal entries apparently written by Mike's son M.A., discussing M.A.'s desire to have sex with Makayla, his stepsister. (Docs. 108 at 6; 129 at 6.) On approximately April 22, 2015, Kari provided Poe with additional journal entries apparently authored by M.A. (Doc. 108 at 6.) This second round of journal entries included a handwritten guide on how to rape, chain up, and kill women or girls-a so-called “rape key.” (Docs. 108 at 6-7; 129 at 5-6.) Poe did not show the rape key to her supervisor or report it to the Department's Centralized Intake. (Doc. 108 at 7.)

During this time, the children were seeing in-home service providers, and Kari, Mike, Makayla, and M.A. were in counseling. (Doc. 129 at 10.) Youth Dynamics was also providing counseling to the children, and the school was involved in supporting the family. (Id.) These service providers were in contact with Poe and the Department. (Id.) Poe testified that she spoke to the Department's sexual abuse response team and to law enforcement concerning the journal entries. (Id. at 14-15.) Poe also testified that she spoke with the school and service providers during this time, and with Kari and Mike regarding their willingness and ability to protect and supervise the children. (Id. at 14-16.) Kari was also taking steps to increase her protective capacities as a parent. (Id. at 1819.)

After the discovery of the rape key, Kari and Mike agreed to keep Makayla and L.A. separate from M.A. (Docs. 108 at 8; 129 at 6.) On approximately May 9, 2015, however, Jacqui authored a case note stating Mike's other son J.A. had disclosed that M.A. used a knife to force J.A. to perform oral sex on him. (Doc. 108 at 7.) On approximately May 10, 2015, Poe completed a Present Danger Assessment, finding there was no present danger. (Id. at 7-8.)

Following the alleged incident involving M.A. and J.A., Kari left the home and took L.A. and J.A. with her. (Doc. 129 at 19-20.) On approximately June 8, 2015, however, Kari allowed M.A. to spend the night at her residence. (Docs. 108 at 8-9; 129 at 19-20.) Kari did not notify the Department prior to allowing M.A. to have contact with the other children. (Doc. 129 at 19-20.) During M.A.'s stay, L.A. was found in the middle of the night in M.A.'s room. (Doc. 108 at 8-9.)

In a Family Functioning Assessment dated June 13, 2015, the Department found that “[t]he parents have mental health and functioning issues which impact their ability to parent.” (Id. at 8.) Nevertheless, it was determined that “[t]here are no impending danger safety threats that cross the threshold.” (Id.)

On approximately July 3, 2015, L.A.'s counselor made a report to the Department's Centralized Intake that L.A. had disclosed being sexual abused by M.A. (Id. at 9.) This report to Centralized Intake was categorized as “information only,” indicating it did not meet criteria for priority. (Id.)

In August 2015, the Department closed the voluntary services for the Anderson family. (Id. at 10.) But less than five months later, on approximately January 1, 2016, the Department received a report that Makayla had disclosed that M.A. attempted to sexually assault her. (Id.) On April 14, 2016, the State of Montana filed petitions in the Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County, seeking (1) authority to provide emergency protective services, (2) adjudication of the respective children as youths in need of care, and (3) temporary legal custody of Makayla and L.A., which the court granted. (Id. at 10-11.) The court eventually dismissed the cases as to Makayla and L.A. on October 2, 2017, and May 14, 2018, respectively. (Id. at 11.)

In their Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 100), Plaintiffs collectively plead causes of action for negligence (Count 1), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 2), as well as a third cause of action for malicious prosecution as to Kari (Count 3).^[3](Id. at 9-12.) For damages, Plaintiffs allege that the Department, by its acts and omissions, “caused immense emotional trauma and damages upon the Anderson family, including all Plaintiffs.” (Id. at 13.)

II. JURISDICTION

When this action was removed from state court, the basis for subject matter jurisdiction was the federal question that arose from Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiffs did not retain their § 1983 claim in their First Amended Complaint, however, and their current Second Amended Complaint contains only state law claims. (See Docs. 59, 100.) Therefore, the Court must address whether it continues to have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Federal district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once all claims with original jurisdiction have been disposed of. Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2011). The court should look at factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to determine whether the balance of these factors favor retaining the state law claims. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010).

Some courts have concluded that, when a plaintiff (1) files an action in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction along with additional state law claims that qualify for supplemental jurisdiction, and subsequently (2) amends the complaint to drop the claim with the federal question, the court should dismiss the remaining state law claims. See, e.g., Corrado v. City of Portland, 2022 WL 225584, at *2 (D. Ore. Jan. 26, 2022); Gentry v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75922, at *12-13 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2015).

Even in situations where the defendant removes the action from state court, the court has the discretion to remand state law claims back to state court when the plaintiff drops the federal claim in an amended complaint. Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1209-10 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Nevertheless, “when a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim, an amendment eliminating the original basis for federal...