Bulfin v. Rainwater

1

ERIN BULFIN, Plaintiff, v. BECKY RAINWATER, RENITA HAWKINS, MARYANNE WILLIS, VANESSA DURIS, PHILIP WAGENKNECHT, and ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Defendants.

No. 4:20 CV 689 JMB

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

November 21, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Now pending before the Court are Defendant Philip Wagenknecht's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 118) Defendants Vanessa Duris, Renita Hawkins, Becky Rainwater Maryanne Willis, and St. Louis County's (collectively County Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 125) Plaintiff Erin Bulfin's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 128), and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 201). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant Wagenknecht's Motion is GRANTED in part the County Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

I. Procedural Background

On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Erin Bulfin filed a 30-count complaint alleging federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims related to the euthanasia of her dog, Daisy, on December 27, 2019 (Doc. 1). She generally alleges that the individual Defendants, who are/were employees of St. Louis County Animal Care and Control during the relevant time-period, unlawfully seized Daisy, euthanized her without permission, and caused damages. In particular, she alleges unlawful seizure claims in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Counts I, VI, XI, XVI, XXIII)^[1] and state law claims of malicious trespass to personalty (Counts II, VII, XII, XVIII, XXIV), conversion (Counts III, VIII, XIII, XX, XXV), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Counts IV, IX, XIV, XXI XXVII), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts V, X, XV, XXII, XVIII) against each of the individual Defendants. The Complaint further alleges a failure to intervene claim against Defendant Maryann Willis (Count XVII) and state law veterinary malpractice claims against Defendants Dr. Vanessa Duris and Dr. Philip Wagenknecht (Counts XIX and XXVI). Finally, she alleges unlawful practice/procedure (Count XXIX) and failure to train/supervise (Count XXX) claims against Defendant St. Louis County.

In response to the County Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her failure to intervene (Count XVII), veterinary malpractice against Duris (Count XIX), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Counts IV, IX, XIV, XXI) claims. In response to Defendant Wagenknecht's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims (Counts XXVII and XXVIII). Therefore, the only remaining claims are her Fourth Amendment claims (Counts I, VI, XI, XVI, XXIII), state law claims of malicious trespass to personalty (Count II, VII, XII, XVIII, XXIV), conversion (Counts III, VIII, XIII, XX, XXV), negligent infliction of emotional distress against the County Defendants (Counts V, X, XV, XXII), and, veterinary malpractice against Defendant Wagenknecht (Count XXVI); and her unlawful practice/procedure (Count XXIX) and failure to train/supervise (Count XXX) claims against Defendant St. Louis County.

II. Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed except where indicated.^[2] The Court has disregarded any purported “fact” that is unsupported by citation to the record.

During the relevant time period, Plaintiff Erin Bulfin and Edward Nea, a married, cohabiting couple who have a daughter together, adopted a dog named Daisy (County Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (DF), Doc. 127, ¶¶ 1-3, 47, 48, 49, 51).^[3] On December 26, 2019, Daisy bit their young daughter in the face, requiring medical attention (DF ¶ 4-5). The next day, Plaintiff contacted Daisy's veterinarian to determine what to do with Daisy (DF ¶ 14). She was informed to contact St. Louis Animal Care and Control (ACC) (DF ¶ 17).^[4]When Plaintiff called ACC, she spoke to Defendant Rebecca Rainwater and informed her that Daisy had bitten her daughter (DF ¶¶ 21, 24). While the parties have a minor dispute as to the specific content of the conversation,^[5] the undisputed fact is that they talked about what options Plaintiff had and Plaintiff indicated that Nea, her husband, would bring Daisy to ACC (DF ¶ 26, Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“PF”), Doc. 129, ¶ 49).^[6]

Nea brought Daisy to ACC on December 27, 2019 around 12:00 p.m. and had a conversation with Defendant Renita Hawkins, the intake clerk, who began preparing an “Intake Form”^[7] and “Bite Form”^[8] while speaking to him (DF ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 38). The parties dispute what verbal information Nea exchanged with Hawkins.

According to Hawkins, Nea insisted that Daisy be euthanized immediately without any period of quarantine (Doc. 127-4, p. 27-28; 41). Rainwater, who was Hawkins' supervisor, then came out of her office and talked to Nea for 10 to 20 minutes (or more), explaining that typically, when an animal is surrendered, they can hold the animal for 10 days before euthanizing it (Doc. 127-4, p. 26, 48; Doc. 127-5, p. 13). Nea nonetheless insisted that he didn't want Daisy to sit in the shelter over the weekend and that he wanted her euthanized immediately (Doc. 127-5, pp. 13, 21). Hence, the “owner requested euthanasia” (ORE) box and various authorizations were check marked on the Intake Form by Hawkins.

According to Nea, he only spoke to Hawkins while inside the ACC building; he had no conversation or interaction with Rainwater (Doc. 127-1, p. 10). He told Hawkins that he wanted Daisy to be quarantined for 10 days and that he may have mentioned euthanasia but only within the context of putting Daisy down if she had rabies (Doc. 127-1, p. 13, 15).

Plaintiff has pointed to no evidence that Rainwater heard the conversation between Hawkins and Nea and/or that she was aware that Nea verbally requested quarantine only. However, Hawkins told Rainwater that she believed Daisy should be quarantined for 10 days but Rainwater told her that they will honor an owner requested euthanasia as set forth on the Intake Form (Doc. 127-4, p. 51). Despite this question of facts as to the exact contents of the conversation(s), Plaintiff does not dispute that “Defendant Hawkins . . . explained the process and paperwork to Edward Nea” (DF ¶ 33).^[9]

After signing the Intake Form, Nea took Daisy outside of the ACC building (PF ¶ 100). ACC employee Clinton Wall then retrieved Daisy from Nea outside the shelter and Nea left the ACC parking lot (DF ¶ 39; PF ¶ 103).

While Nea interacted with Hawkins, Defendant Dr. Vanessa Duris, who was the Director of ACC, was speaking to Dr. Philip Wagenknecht, the veterinarian, who was standing outside her office (Doc. 127-7, pp. 11, 12). After Nea left ACC, Rainwater glanced in the room and asked whether Dr. Wagenknecht had time to perform an “ORE in a bite case” (Doc. 127-5, pp. 10-11). Dr. Duris recalls someone asking Dr. Wagenknecht if he had time for one more euthanasia and Dr. Wagenknecht agreed if he could have help (Doc. 127-7, p. 11).^[10] Dr. Duris does not recall being asked or giving permission for Daisy's euthanasia (Doc. 127-1, p. 11). However, Rainwater testified that Dr. Duris said “okay” to her request (Doc. 127-5, p. 11). At that point, Maryanne Willis, another employee of ACC, approached the group and Rainwater asked Willis to assist Dr. Wagenknecht (Doc. 127-5, p. 12). Willis agreed (Doc. 127-5, p. 12). Willis then scanned Daisy's microchip and determined that she was registered to “Erin Nea,” compared the name to the name on the Intake Form and confirmed that the address on the microchip was the same address provided by Nea (DF ¶¶ 41, 42, 43). Neither Dr. Duris, Dr. Wagenknecht, nor Willis had direct contact with Plaintiff or Nea nor is there any evidence that they were privy to any conversations Plaintiff and/or Nea had with Rainwater and/or Hawkins (DF ¶¶ 54, 56). Daisy was subsequently euthanized (DF ¶ 46). It is undisputed that Plaintiff came to ACC the next day and was unaware that Daisy had been euthanized. There is no evidence that Plaintiff, herself, requested that Daisy be euthanized.

Daisy's euthanasia has been “extremely traumatic” for Plaintiff's family, especially their youngest daughter (Doc. 127-2, p. 34). It was also “absolutely devastating” to Plaintiff and caused stress and upset, headaches, stomach problems, nausea, anxiety, and depression of unspecified duration or intensity (Doc. 127-2, p. 34-37). However, she did not seek counseling, psychiatric or medical assistance, has not been diagnosed with any disorder or medical harm, and has not missed work as a result of Daisy's euthanasia (Doc. 127-2, p. 34-35).

Intake Form

ACC has only one Intake Form which is used for quarantines, owner surrenders, and euthanasia (Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Uncontroverted Material Facts (PAF), Doc. 203 ¶ 23). The Intake Form is a two-page document containing various boxes to be checked, information about the person bringing the dog to ACC, places for a person to sign, date, and provide a Missouri Driver's License number, a description of the dog, notes, and additional information regarding vaccinations and surgery notes (Doc. 127-8, p. 1-2). The Intake Form in this case describes Daisy, indicates she was received on 12/27/2019, that she was surrendered because of “Bite/ORE” (a “Bite Case OWNED” box is likewise checked), that Daisy's chip was registered to “Erin Nea” with the same address as Edward Nea, and that the “Quarantine End/Date Sent to Lab: 1-6-20”

followed by a notation of “12/30/19” with someone's initials (Id.). It is undisputed...