De Contreras v. City of Rialto

894 F.Supp.2d 1238

Emiliano Michael DE CONTRERAS, An Individual, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF RIALTO, A Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. EDCV 11–01425 VAP.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Sept. 25, 2012.

Elena C. Correa, Law Office of Elena C. Correa, Ontario, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Jon Farrell Hamilton, Kimberly Anne Wah, Ferguson Praet and Sherman, Santa Ana, CA, Risa Su Christensen, Wagner and Pelayes LLP, Riverside, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.

The Court has received and considered all Defendants' papers filed in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing on this matter took place on September 10, 2012. Both parties' counsel submitted on the Court's tentative order without oral argument.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Vanessa Morales, Raquel Padilla, Emiliano Michael De Contreras, and Mario Diaz filed a complaint on September 7, 2011 (Doc. No. 1) and an amended complaint on November 4, 2011 (Doc. No. 17), both of which alleged claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision and hiring, negligence, and abuse of process. The Court granted Defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, on December 27, 2011 (Doc. No. 25). Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on January 17, 2012 (Doc. No. 26), and their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on February 10, 2012, which named as Defendants City of Rialto, Officers Michael Mastaler, William Wilson, Michael Lee, and Scott Chilton (all in their individual and official capacities),Mark King (in his individual and official capacity), County of San Bernardino (“the County”), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, San Bernardino District Attorney's Office (“the DA's Office”), West Valley Detention Center (“WVDC”), Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (“ARMC”), and Does 1 through 10. (Doc. No. 33.) In their TAC, Plaintiffs asserted the following claims:

1. Municipal Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City, County, King, and “Does 6–10” (“First Claim”);

2. Violation of De Contreras's Fourth Amendment Rights brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against King, Officers Mastaler, Wilson, Lee, and Chilton, and “Does 1–5” (“Second Claim”);

3. Violation of De Contreras's Fourteenth Amendment Rights brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against King, Officers Mastaler, Wilson, Lee, and Chilton, and “Does 1–5” (“Third Claim”);

4. Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12100, et seq., against the City, County, and “Does 6–10” (“Fourth Claim”); ¹

5. Assault, against Officers Mastaler, Wilson, Lee, and Chilton, and “Does 1–5” (“Fifth Claim”);

6. Battery, against Officers Mastaler, Wilson, Lee, and Chilton, and “Does 1–5” (“Sixth Claim”);

7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), against Officers Mastaler, Wilson, Lee, and Chilton, and “Does 1–5” (“Seventh Claim”);

8. Negligent Supervision and Hiring, against the City and County (“Eighth Claim”);

9. Negligence, against all Defendants (“Ninth Claim”); and

10. Abuse of Process, against all Defendants (“Tenth Claim”).

On April 9, 2012, the Court granted, with leave to amend, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first, fourth, eighth, ninth, and tenth claims against the County, the Sheriff's Department, the DA's Office, WVDC, and ARMC. (Doc. No. 42.)

On April 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same Defendants (Doc. No. 48); on April 25, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss from the FAC all claims against the DA's Office, ARMC, and the County, except those against the Sheriff's Department for its operations of WVDC. (Doc. No. 51.) Since then, Plaintiffs, except for De Conteras, stipulated to dismiss their fourth and fifth claims as against the County (June 18, 2012 Stipulation (Doc. No. 62)), and De Contreras stipulated to dismiss all claims against the County, its Sheriff's Department, and WVDC (September 6, 2012 Stipulation (Doc. No. 105)). All Plaintiffs, including De Contreras, have stipulated to dismiss from the FAC Defendants Mark Kling ² and the Rialto Police Department (July 17, 2012 Stipulation (Doc. No. 69)); their second claim as to Mastaler (July 17, 2012 Stipulation (Doc. No. 70)); their sixth, seventh, and eighth claims as to all Defendants (July 18, 2012 Stipulation (Doc. No. 71)); their second and third claims as to Chilton and Wilson (July 18, 2012 Stipulations (Doc. Nos. 72, 73)); their tenth claim as to Chilton and Lee (August 8 and 9, 2012 Stipulations (Doc. Nos. 85, 87)); and their first claim as to all Defendants (August 9, 2012 Stipulation (Doc. No. 86)).

On August 13, 2012, the remaining Defendants moved for summary judgment (Doc. No. 88, re-filed August 23 at Doc. No. 99) on the remaining FAC claims, summarized below:

1. De Contreras's

a. Fourth Amendment claim against Lee for excessive force;

b. Fourteenth Amendment claim against Lee and Mastaler for fabricating police reports;

c. state law claim for abuse of process against the City, Wilson, and Mastaler; and

2. All plaintiffs'

a. Rehabilitation Act claim against the City;

b. ADA claim against the City;

c. negligent supervision and hiring claim against the City; and

d. general negligence claims against the City, Wilson, and Mastaler.

Along with its Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), Defendants filed a declaration of Jon F. Hamilton (Doc. No. 99–6) attaching Exhibits A–Y (Doc. Nos. 99–2, 3, 4) and a Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF” (Doc. No. 99–7)). On August 20, the deadline for filing an opposition, Plaintiffs filed their Objection to Evidence (Doc. No. 96) and no other documents. Defendants replied on August 27. (Doc. No. 102.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party must show that “under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Generally, the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that it is entitled to summary judgment. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998); Retail Clerks Union Local 648 v. Hub Pharmacy, Inc., 707 F.2d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1983). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying the elements of the claim or defense and evidence that it believes demonstrates the absence of an issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

When the non-moving party has the burden at trial, however, the moving party need not produce evidence negating or disproving every essential element of the non-moving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Instead, the moving party's burden is met by pointing out there is an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's case. Id.

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The non-moving party must make an affirmative showing on all matters placed in issue by the motion as to which it has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505;see also William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, 14:144. “This burden is not a light one. The non-moving party must show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505). “The non-moving party must do more than show there is some ‘metaphysical doubt’ as to the material facts at issue.” In re Oracle, 627 F.3d at 387 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).

A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir.1991); T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630–31 (9th Cir.1987).

III. FACTSA. Preliminary Matters

1. Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs' counsel, Elena C. Correa, electronically filed Plaintiffs' objections to Defendants' MSJ evidence. Correa did not sign the document, either by hand or electronically, nor did she submit a mandatory chambers copy of the document. Thus, the document Correa submits is in violation of (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name....”); (2) Local Rule 5–4.3.4 (requiring electronically filed documents to be signed and listing the acceptable forms of signature); (3) Local Rule 5–4.5 (requiring delivery to chambers of a duplicate in paper format of all electronically filed documents); (4) Court's Standing Order ¶ 7 (Doc. No. 4) (requiring the same); and (5) Local Rule 11–1 (requiring counsel's signature on all documents except for declarations).

Plaintiffs object on hearsay grounds to the declarations of Rialto Police Corporal John Black (Ex. C); Rialto Police Sergeant Christopher Hice (Ex. K); former...