Rockness v. Rockness

1

BARBARA ROCKNESS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. RON ROCKNESS, an individual; and WHITMAN COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Defendants.

No. 2:21-CV-00153-MKD

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

March 29, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WHITMAN COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ECF NO. 10

MARY K. DIMKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Whitman County's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10. On March 30, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. ECF No. 22. Samantha Lin appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Barbara Rockness (“Ms Rockness”). Michael McFarland appeared on behalf of Defendant Whitman County (“Whitman County”). Defendant Ron Rockness (“Mr. Rockness”) did not participate in the hearing.

In her Complaint, Ms. Rockness brings claims of negligence, battery and assault, and outrage against Mr. Rockness. ECF No. 2 at 3-4 ¶ 4.1-6.3.

Ms Rockness brings one claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Whitman County. ECF No. 2 at 4 ¶ 7.1-7.2. Whitman County moves for summary judgment as to Ms Rockness's claim against it. See ECF No. 10. For the reasons stated herein, Whitman County's motion is GRANTED and the remainder of the case is REMANDED to state court.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed.^[1] At all relevant times, Mr. Rockness worked for Whitman County as the Whitman County Sheriff's Office Undersheriff. ECF No. 2 at 2 ¶ 3.1; ECF No. 7 at 2 ¶ 3.1. In December 2017, Mr. Rockness responded to a domestic issue involving Ms. Rockness at Ms. Rockness's home. ECF No. 11 at 1-2 ¶¶ 1-3. At that time, Ms. Rockness was not married to Mr. Rockness; she was married to Eugene McKinney. ECF No. 11 at 2 ¶ 3.

Ms. Rockness next met Mr. Rockness in March 2018, when the two exchanged small talk outside of Ms. Rockness's home. ECF No. 11 at 2-3 ¶¶ 5-8. Mr. Rockness told Ms. Rockness that he offered free rides in his patrol car if she was ever interested. ECF No. 11 at 2 ¶ 7. They continued to interact, making small talk, and exchanging text messages, in April and May 2018. ECF No. 11 at 3-4 ¶¶ 9-13. During some interactions, Mr. Rockness was uniformed and in his patrol car, and during others, he was not. ECF No. 11 at 3-5 ¶¶ 9-18.

In June 2018, Mr. McKinney filed for divorce from Ms. Rockness, and Ms. Rockness and Mr. Rockness began dating. ECF No. 11 at 2-4 ¶¶ 4, 14. Ms. Rockness and Mr. Rockness began living together in October 2018. ECF No. 11 at 5 ¶ 19. Ms. Rockness reports Mr. Rockness began verbal abusing her after they began dating. ECF No. 11 at 5 ¶ 22. In an incident on December 31, 2018, Mr. Rockness was drinking and was verbally abusive. ECF No. 12-1 at 30:1-11.

Ms. Rockness and Mr. Rockness married on June 18, 2019. ECF No. 11 at 5 ¶ 20. On July 17, 2019, Mr. Rockness was verbally abusive to Ms. Rockness, in an incident where Mr. Rockness swore at Ms. Rockness in anger and chased her. ECF No. 11 at 5 ¶ 21.

The first incident of physical abuse occurred on September 16, 2019. ECF No. 11 at 5-6 ¶ 23; ECF No. 12-1^[2] at 32:10-20; 34:24-25; 35:8-11; ECF No. 14 at 2 ¶ 6; ECF No. 16 at 2 ¶ 3; ECF No. 18 ¶ 3. Ms. Rockness fled from Mr. Rockness and attempted to close a bedroom door. ECF No. 14 at 2 ¶ 6. Mr. Rockness forced the door open and injured Ms. Rockness's arm. ECF No. 14 at 2 ¶ 6.

In an incident in October 2019, Ms. Rockness feared that Mr. Rockness would hurt her and asked him to leave their home. ECF No. 14 at 2 ¶ 7; ECF No. 16 at 2 ¶ 4; ECF No. 18 at 3 ¶ 4. Mr. Rockness banged on the doors, and eventually overpowered Ms. Rockness to enter the home and verbally berated her. ECF No. 14 at 2 ¶ 7.

In an incident on December 12, 2019, Ms. Rockness again feared that Mr. Rockness would hurt her, and Ms. Rockness attempted to lock herself into the bedroom. ECF No. 16 at 3 ¶ 6; ECF No. 18 at ¶ 6. Mr. Rockness grabbed onto Ms. Rockness's purse strap, which caught around Ms. Rockness's hand, and fractured her finger. ECF No. 16 at 3 ¶ 6; ECF No. 18 at ¶ 6. Ms. Rockness was diagnosed with a displaced fracture of her right ring finger with a permanent rotational deformity. ECF No. 16 at 3 ¶ 7; ECF No. 18 at ¶ 6; see ECF No. 11 at 6 ¶ 24.

Ms. Rockness filed a police report on December 13, 2019. ECF No. 11 at 56 ¶¶ 23, 25. She separated from Mr. Rockness that day, and they are now divorced. ECF No. 14 at 3 ¶ 10. Ms. Rockness reports that, during the incidents of abuse, Mr. Rockness told her that “he was No. 2 in command” at the Sheriff's Office where he worked, and that “if [she] dialed 911, . . . he would just tell them that [she] hurt him, and [she] would be arrested.” ECF No. 12-1 at 37:1-4; ECF No. 11 at 6 ¶ 27. Mr. Rockness was not on duty for any of the incidents of physical abuse. ECF No. 11 at 6 ¶ 26.

On February 8, 2021, Ms. Rockness filed suit against Mr. Rockness in the Whitman County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 1-3. On April 12, 2021, Ms. Rockness amended her state court complaint to add the Whitman County Sheriff's Office as a defendant. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No 1-5. On May 5, 2021, Whitman County filed a Notice of Removal to this court. On May 7, 2021, Ms. Rockness filed an Amended Complaint, replacing the Whitman County Sheriff's Office with Whitman County as a defendant. ECF No. 2. On November 16, 2021, Whitman County moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 10.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

A district court must grant summary judgment “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); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Barnes v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 934 F.3d 901, 906 (9th Cir. 2019). “A fact is ‘material' only if it might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is ‘genuine' only if a reasonable trier of fact could resolve the issue in the non-movant's favor.” Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

The moving party “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' [that] demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admission on file “specific facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute of material fact] for trial.” Id. at 324.

The Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inference in the nonmoving party's favor.” Rookaird v. BNSF Ry. Co., 908 F.3d 451, 459 (9th Cir. 2018). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge ....” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. “Summary judgment is improper ‘where divergent ultimate inferences may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts.'” Fresno Motors, 771 F.3d at 1125 (quoting Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006)).

DISCUSSION

A. Evidentiary Objections

Whitman County argues that several exhibits attached to the Declaration of Samantha Lin, ECF No. 15, should be stricken and not considered for summary judgment because they “have not been properly authenticated and constitute hearsay.” ECF No. 17 at 1. Prior to 2010, courts typically did not consider unauthenticated evidence during summary judgment. See Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 774-78 (9th Cir. 2002). However, in 2010, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 was amended to allow courts to consider unauthenticated evidence, so long as the evidence would be admissible at trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2) advisory comm. Note to 2010 amendments (“[t]he burden is on the proponent to show that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form that is anticipated” at trial). The inquiry at summary judgment is not focused on the evidence's form, rather, the Court should consider the admissibility the evidence's contents. Hodges v. Hertz Corp., 351 F.Supp.3d 1227, 1231-32 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citing Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 103637 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A]t summary judgment a district court may consider hearsay evidence submitted in an inadmissible form, so long as the underlying evidence could be provided in an admissible form at trial, such as by live testimony.”).

In addition, “objections for relevance are generally unnecessary on summary judgment because they are ‘duplicative of the summary judgment standard itself.'” Sandoval v. Cty. Of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006)). Whitman County's objections based upon authentication and relevance are OVERRULED. The Court considers the remaining objections to each exhibit in turn.

1. Exhibits 1 and 2

Exhibit 1 is a Police Family Violence Facts Sheet produced by the National Center for Women and Policing. ECF No. 15 at 1 ¶ 3; ECF No. 15-1 at 1. Ms. Rockness seeks to introduce this evidence to support findings that families of officers have a unique vulnerability to domestic violence. ECF No. 13 at 4 ¶ 3-9. Exhibit 2 is a scholarly article that attempts to link revictimization of domestic violence victims to specific personality characteristics. ECF No. 15 at 2 ¶...