Scanlon v. Cnty. of L. A., Case No.: 2:18-cv-7759-CBM-AS

495 F.Supp.3d 894

Rachel SCANLON, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-7759-CBM-AS

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed October 21, 2020

Rachel R. Raymond, Raymond and Williams, South Pasadena, CA, Sarah Elizabeth Marinho, Robert R. Powell, Law Office of Robert R. Powell, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Avi Burkwitz, Darren V. Pang, Taline Markarian, Peterson Bradford Burkwitz LLP, Burbank, CA, Ryan Augustine Graham, Law Offices of Ryan A. Graham, Esq., West Hollywood, CA, for Defendant County of Los Angeles.

Avi Burkwitz, Darren V. Pang, Peterson Bradford Burkwitz LLP, Burbank, CA, Ryan Augustine Graham, Law Offices of Ryan A. Graham, Esq., West Hollywood, CA, for Defendants Lourdes Olarte, Marisol Gonzalez, Angela Hashizume.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DKT. NO. 83)

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The matter before the Court is Defendants County of Los Angeles (the "County"), Marisol Gonzalez ("Defendant Gonzalez"), Marisha Harris ("Defendant Harris"), Angela Hashizume ("Defendant Hashizume"), and Lourdes Olarte's ("Defendant Olarte") motion for judgment on the pleadings (the "Motion") as to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (See Dkt. No. 83 (Mot.).) The Motion is fully briefed. (See Dkt. No. 91 (Opp.); Dkt. No. 92 (Reply).)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rachel Scanlon ("Plaintiff Scanlon") and Plaintiff Steven Sawyer ("Plaintiff Sawyer") (collectively, "Parent Plaintiffs") are the parents and guardians ad litem of plaintiffs K.X. and G.X., who are minor children (collectively, the "minor children"). (Dkt. No. 29 (First Amended Complaint ("FAC")) at ¶¶ 4-7.) Plaintiff K.X. was born with autism and occasionally engaged in harmful or self-injurious behaviors. (Id. at ¶ 43.) On September 15, 2017, Defendant Olarte, a social worker employed by the County, visited Parent Plaintiffs’ home to investigate reports that K.X. appeared intoxicated at school. (Id. at ¶¶ 35, 46.) Plaintiff Scanlon explained to Defendant Olarte that Parent Plaintiffs were treating K.X.’s symptoms with cannabis oil pursuant to a doctor's recommendation. (Id. at ¶ 49.) The cannabis oil was contained in a medicine bottle located on a high shelf in Parent Plaintiffs’ kitchen. (Id. at ¶ 58.)

Later that day, Plaintiff Scanlon received a phone call from G.X.’s school notifying her that individuals from the Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") privately interviewed G.X. (Id. at ¶ 71.) Parent Plaintiffs did not consent to the interview of G.X., nor did Defendants request such consent. (Id. at ¶¶ 72-73.)

Parent Plaintiffs attended a meeting with Defendant Olarte, Defendant Harris, and Defendant Gonzalez at the offices of DCFS on September 19, 2017. (Id. at ¶¶ 76, 78, 120.) During the meeting, Defendant Olarte and Defendant Harris expressed their concern to Parent Plaintiffs about the use of cannabis oil to treat K.X.’s symptoms and the method of storage of the cannabis oil in Parent Plaintiffs’ house. (Id. at ¶¶ 87, 90-110.) Neither Defendant Olarte nor Defendant Harris expressed any concerns or questions about G.X. being the victim of neglect, abuse, or child abuse. (Id. at ¶ 88.)

Defendants obtained a warrant authorizing the removal of K.X. and G.X. on September 27, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 126.) The FAC alleges Defendant Olarte, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Harris obtained the warrant by making fraudulent and misleading statements. (Id. at ¶¶ 127-32.) G.X. and K.X. were removed from their schools on September 28, 2017, and placed in separate foster homes. (Id. at ¶¶ 133, 143.) Parent Plaintiffs had no physical contact with G.X. and K.X. until their first court appearance on October 2, 2017, when a court ordered the minor children be returned to Parent Plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶¶ 146, 160.) In a hearing on December 7, 2017, a court dismissed the case with prejudice after concluding "there was no evidence of any abuse or neglect of either child[.]" (Id. at ¶¶ 165-66, 168.)

The FAC alleges six claims for relief: (1) violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendant Olarte and Defendant Gonzalez arising from the interview of G.X. without the consent of Parent Plaintiffs (First Claim for Relief); (2) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendant Olarte, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Harris arising from the removal of the minor children by way of a fraudulent or misleading warrant (Second Claim for Relief); (3) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from deception in the presentation of evidence to the court against all Defendants (Third Claim for Relief); (4) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendant Olarte and Defendant Gonzalez arising from medical examinations conducted on the minor children while they were in the custody of the County (Fourth Claim for Relief); (5) a Monell claim against the County (Fifth Claim for Relief); and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Olarte, Defendant Gonzalez, Defendant Harris, and Defendant Hashizume (Sixth Claim for Relief).

Defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint, which the Court granted-in-part with leave to amend.¹ (See Dkt. No. 26.)

II. JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

"Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and ... the same standard of review is applied to motions brought under either rule." United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations marks omitted). Rule 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). All well-pleaded facts are taken as true, with all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Labels, conclusions, or formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A complaint must state "evidentiary facts which, if true, will prove [the claim]." Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. , 518 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. First Claim for Relief

In the First Claim for Relief, Parent Plaintiffs and G.X. allege three constitutional violations against Defendant Olarte and Defendant Gonzalez arising from the interview of G.X. without the consent of Parent Plaintiffs: (1) a violation of the "right[ ] of familial association" under the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and (3) a violation of the First Amendment right "to be free from unjustified, unreasonable, and unlawful interference in [Parent Plaintiff and G.X.’s] relationship." (Id. at ¶¶ 172-174.)

Although the three constitutional violations are alleged in a single claim for relief, the Court analyzes each violation separately. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County , 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000) ("A claim is the ‘aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’ [citation omitted]."). Defendants argue each claim is barred by qualified immunity. Moreover, Defendants argue the Fourteenth Amendment claim fails on the merits.

1. Fourth Amendment Violation

Defendants argue the violation of the Fourth Amendment asserted in the First Claim for Relief should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Government officials "are entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless Plaintiffs plead facts showing (1) that the officials violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation , 965 F.3d 1015, 1031 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted; cleaned up). The Court is permitted to address either of the two prongs first in light of the circumstances of the case. Id. (citation omitted)

"For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘the contours of a right are sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ " Id. (cleaned up; citation omitted) "This inquiry ... must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition." Id. at 1031-32 (citing Saucier v. Katz , 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) ). "[W]here the test for determining whether the right in question has been violated is framed as a standard, rather than a rule, officials are given more breathing room to make ‘reasonable mistakes.’ " Id. at 1032 (citing Katz , 533 U.S. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

Defendants argue Defendant Olarte and Defendant Gonzalez are immune from liability under the Fourth Amendment for interviewing G.X. at school without the consent of Parent Plaintiffs pursuant to Capp v. County of San Diego , 940 F.3d 1046, (9th Cir. 2019). The Capp plaintiffs asserted the defendants violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when social workers interviewed the minor children without the consent of the father while they were at school. Id. at 1059. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity, holding "the right of minor children to be free from unconstitutional seizures and interrogations by social workers has not been clearly established." Id. The Circuit reasoned:

Plaintiffs rely on Greene v. Camreta , in which we held that social workers’ seizure and interrogation

...