Hill v. City of Fountain Valley

STEPHEN DOUGLAS HILL et al. Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY et al. Defendants.

No. SA 8:20-CV-00705-DOC-(DFMx)

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division

July 13, 2021

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING THE CASE TO STATE COURT [33]

DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants' City of Fountain Valley, Stuart Chase, Gannon Kelly, and James Cataline (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion” or “Mot.”). The Court heard oral argument on this matter on July 8, 2021. Having reviewed the papers and considered the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Fountain Valley Police Officers Stuart Chase and Gannon Kelly's (collectively the “Officers”) encounter with Stephen Hill, Teresa Hill, Brett Hill, C.H., a minor, and A.H., a minor (collectively “Plaintiffs”). See generally First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. 31). The FAC alleges ten causes of action stemming from this encounter: (1) Unreasonable Use of Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) Unreasonable Seizure of Person in Violation of the Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (3) Monell Claim for Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (4) Violation of the Right to Speak Freely in Violation of the First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (5) Excessive Use of Force in Violation of the Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1); (6) False Arrest/Imprisonment; (7) Battery; (8) Assault; (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (10) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. See generally id.

A. FACTS^[1]

On April 30, 2019, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the Fountain Valley Dispatch received a report of a “dark grey Ford Mustang” seen “driving erratically” with a female passenger who appeared to be blindfolded. Declaration of Stuart Chase (“Chase Dec.”) p. 24, ¶ 3 (Dkt. 33). The vehicle was registered to Benjamin Hill (“Benjamin”) who lived at 16706 Maple Street in Fountain Valley, California (the “Residence”). Id., ¶ 4.

Fountain Valley Police Officers Gannon Kelly and Stuart Chase went to the Residence. Id., ¶ 3. They pulled into the Residence's driveway and up to a closed garage with no windows. Id., ¶ 6. The Officers thought the Mustang might be inside. Id., ¶¶ 8, 10.

Shortly after the Officers arrived, Teresa Hill (“Teresa”), who lived at the Residence, pulled into the driveway next to the Officers. Id., ¶ 11. The Officers asked Teresa about Benjamin's whereabouts. Id., ¶ 12. Teresa informed them Benjamin was her son, that he lived at the Residence, and that he drove a grey Mustang; however, she stated Benjamin was not home. Id., ¶¶ 12-14. The Officers asked Teresa for Benjamin's phone number, but she refused because she wanted to ensure she could contact Benjamin before the Officers did to warn him the police were at the Residence. Deposition of Teresa Hill (“Teresa Depo.”) 21:15-22:11 (Dkt. 43-1).

When Stephen Hill (“Stephen”) saw the Officers talking to his wife, Stephen exited the Residence and approached the Officers. Chase Dec. p. 25, ¶ 17. The Officers asked Stephen for his Benjamin's phone number, but, like Teresa, he initially refused. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Stephen offered to give Benjamin the Officers' business cards when Benjamin returned home but would not provide Stephen's phone number because he wanted to ensure everything was “on the up and up.” Id.

After more conversation, Teresa went inside to get Benjamin's phone number, but Stephen stated he needed to stay outside with his granddaughter, C.H., who was asleep in Teresa's car. Id. ¶ 29. The Officers suggested Stephen bring C.H. inside so that he could also look for Benjamin's phone number in the Residence. Id.; Audio Belt Recording of Gannon Kelly (“Gannon Recording”) 2:45-3:10 (Dkt. 43). The Officers never told Stephen he was detained before he entered the Residence. Deposition of Stuart Chase (“Chase Depo.”) 38:15-39:4 (Dkt. 43).

Still on the driveway, Officer Chase saw some movement through the window of Stephen and Teresa's bedroom. Police Report of Stuart Chase (“Chase Report”), p. 1, ¶ 4 (Dkt. 43). Officer Chase walked across the lawn and saw a man matching Benjamin's description in the bedroom. Id. The Officers asked the man to come outside, but the man walked out of the Officers' sight. Declaration of Stephen Hill (“Stephen Decl.”) ¶¶ 39-44 (Dkt. 44). The man, the Officers later found out, was not Benjamin, but his brother, Brett Hill (“Brett”). Id.

Stephen then walked into the bedroom, and Officer Chase, through the window, asked “Hey, who's that person over there?” apparently referencing Brett who was now standing in the hallway. Chase Dec. p. 25 ¶ 35. Stephen maintains he did not hear Officer Chase's question. Stephen Decl. ¶ 39. Stephen closed the curtains the Officers were looking through. Chase Dec. p. 26, ¶ 36.

The Officers went to the front door and looked through a window at the top of the front door. Declaration of Gannon Kelly (“Kelly Dec.”) p. 31 ¶¶ 11-12 (Dkt. 33); Chase Dec. p. 26 ¶ 37. Shining a flashlight through the window, Officer Kelly saw the unknown male who matched Benjamin's description (i.e., Brett), Teresa, and Stephen inside. Kelly Dec. p. 31, ¶ 13. Officer Kelly checked the door to find it locked. Kelly Dec. p. 31 ¶ 14. 14. A verbal exchange followed where the Officers stated “Guys, come outside, ” which Teresa interpreted to refer to Brett and Stephen. Teresa Depo. 29:10-13. The Officers did not order the two minors, A.H. and C.H., to come outside. Id.

Stephen opened the door and came out of the residence, while Brett and Teresa remained inside. Chase Dec. p. 26, ¶ 40. As Stephen closed the door, Officer Kelly put his foot in the doorjamb to prevent it from closing. Deposition of Gannon Kelly (“Kelly Depo.”) p. 43:18-44:9 (Dkt. 43). The Officers grabbed Stephen and walked him to the grass to avoid taking him down on concrete. Stephen Decl. ¶ 64-72. Once on the grass, Stephen was pushed down to his knees then prone. Deposition of Stephen Hill (“Stephen Depo.”) 60:4-6 (Dkt. 33). While being pushed to the ground, Stephen's head hit the grass and his glasses cut his forehead. Id. 62: 6-9. This was Stephen's only injury. See generally Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) (Dkt. 33).

Shortly after the Officers' confrontation with Stephen began, Brett and Teresa exited the Residence, and the Officers told Brett and Teresa not to approach. Ex. M (Dkt. 33). Brett was subsequently searched for weapons, and, at this point, the Officers discovered the man matching the driver's description was Brett, Benjamin's brother, and thus not the driver. Chase Dec. p. 27 ¶ 56. Stephen was placed under arrest, cited for violation of Penal Code section 148(a)(1) for obstructing a police officer, and taken to the hospital for medical clearance. Chase Dec. p. 27 ¶ 59.

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on September 19, 2020, alleging ten causes of action. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all ten of these causes of action on May 5, 2021. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on June 25, 2021. Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Opp'n.”) (Dkt. 44).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is to be granted cautiously, with due respect for a party's right to have its factually grounded claims and defenses tried before a jury. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A court must view the facts and draw inferences in the manner most favorable to the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1992); Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1992). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial, but it need not disprove the other party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. When the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden by pointing out that the non-moving party has failed to present any genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of its case. See Musick v. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir. 1990).

Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to set out specific material facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248-49. A “material fact” is one which “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law . . . . ” Id. at 248. A party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact simply by making assertions in its legal papers. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v. Walter Kidde & Co., Inc., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, there must be specific, admissible, evidence identifying the basis for the dispute. See Id. The Court need not “comb the record” looking for other evidence; it is only required to consider evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers and the portions of the record cited therein. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [the opposing party].” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue all ten of Plaintiffs' causes of action fail as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts. See generally Mot. The Court analyzes each cause of action in turn.

A...