Valadez v. Cnty. of L. A.

1

ANNE VALADEZ and VALENTINO GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; DEPUTY HUNZINGER; DEPUTY VERA; FIELD SUPERVISOR DEPUTY MICAH LOPEZ; DEPUTY JAVIER HERNANDEZ; DEPUTY JOEL J. MACIAS; SERGEANT POLANCO; LIEUTENANT PATTERSON; CAPTAIN KERRY A. CARTER; SERGEANT RICHARD F. ALVAREZ; DEPUTY REFUGIO IBARRA; DEPUTY GOMEZ; SERGEANT ADAMS; SERGEANT VARELA; CHIEF VIERA; WATCH COMMANDER DEPUTY STRONG; SERGEANT BRIAN ANDERSON; DEPUTY GUILLERMO ALVAREZ, JR.; DEPUTY NICOLAS MARINELLI; SERGEANT MARY DE BELLA; DEPUTY ADRIAN DE CASAS; DEPUTY JAN WONG; DEPUTY JOSHUA HERNANDEZ; and DOES 8 through 10 inclusive, Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-03724-JWH-SKx

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 24, 2024

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 111]

JOHN W. HOLCOMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the motion^[1] of Defendants County of Los Angeles Deputy John Hunziker;^[2] Deputy Eliezer Vera, Jr.; Deputy Jaime Gomez; Sergeant Micah Lopez;^[3]Deputy Joel Macias; Sergeant Jesse Polanco; Sergeant Richard Alvarez; Deputy Refugio Ibarra Sergeant Andrea Varela; Lieutenant Dru Strong;^[4] Lieutenant Paul Patterson; Commander Kerry Carter;^[5] Chief Eliezer Vera;^[6] Deputy Guillermo Alvarez, Jr.; Lieutenant Mary De Bella;^[7] Detective Adrian De Casas;^[8] Deputy Nicolas Marinelli; Deputy Jan Wong; Lieutenant John Adams;^[9] and Deputy Joshua Hernandez (collectively “Defendants”), for summary judgment on the Second Amended Complaint^[10] of Plaintiffs Anne Valadez and Valentino Gonzalez. The Court conducted a hearing on the Motion in April 2023. After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition,^[11] as well as the argument of counsel at the hearing, the Court orders that the Motion is GRANTED, for the reasons set forth herein.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiffs commenced this case in April 2020 and filed their operative Amended Complaint in September 2022, in which they assert the following nine claims for relief:

• Deprivation of Constitutional Rights-Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

• Excessive Force and Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983); • Unreasonable Search and Seizure (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

• Custom, Practice, or Policy Causing Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

• Negligence (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 815.2(a) & 820(a));

• Battery (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 815.2(a) & 820(a));

• Violation of California Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52 & 52.1);

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 815.2(a) & 820(a)); and

• First Amendment Retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Defendants filed the instant Motion in January 2023, in which they contend that Plaintiffs cannot establish the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to any claim in their Amended Complaint and that Defendants are entitled to judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law. Plaintiffs opposed, and the Motion is fully briefed.^[12]

B. Evidentiary Objections

“A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 385 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment may only be based on admissible evidence.”). At summary judgment, a district court “must also rule on evidentiary objections that are material to its ruling.” Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2010). “A court can award summary judgment only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact. It cannot rely on irrelevant facts, and thus relevance objections are redundant.” Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Additionally, “when evidence is not presented in an admissible form in the context of a motion for summary judgment, but it may be presented in an admissible form at trial, a court may still consider that evidence.” Id. at 1120. All evidentiary objections on which the Court does not expressly rule below-because the Court did not rely on that evidence in reaching its decision on Defendants' Motion-are OVERRULED as moot.

Although the Court will address the specific evidentiary objections that are germane to summary judgment, both sides rely on so-called “self-serving” declarations throughout their Statements of Facts and Evidentiary Disputes. The Ninth Circuit has “previously acknowledged that declarations are often self-serving, and this is properly so because the party submitting it would use the declaration to support his or her position.” Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th Cir. 2015). “Although the source of the evidence may have some bearing on its credibility and on the weight it may be given by a trier of fact, the district court may not disregard a piece of evidence at the summary judgment stage solely based on its self-serving nature.” Id. “However, a self-serving declaration does not always create a genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment: The district court can disregard a self-serving declaration that states only conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence.” Id.

C. Facts

Plaintiffs Valadez and Gonzalez are a couple who live in Huntington Park, California. They allege that they are victims of an ongoing campaign of “harassment and retaliation by the [Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (the ‘LASD')] and its deputies for several years.”^[13] Plaintiffs live in a mobile home park in a mixed-use neighborhood. That neighborhood is considered a high-crime area because of frequent reports to the LASD of vehicle thefts, shootings, and the use and sale of narcotics.^[14] In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs recount several interactions with LASD officers. Those interactions are detailed below.

1. July 27, 2018

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiffs were sitting in their car in front of their residence when Deputies Adrian De Casas and Jan Wong drove past “in a menacing, intimidating matter [sic].”^[15] De Casas asked Gonzalez about the expired registration on Plaintiffs' vehicle, but the deputies left without issuing any citation to Plaintiffs.^[16] Valadez then filed a complaint with the LASD, claiming that De Casas and Wong harassed Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs' prior interactions with the LASD. In response, non-party Sergeant Martin Harney conceded that it “appears employee conduct could have been better.”^[17] Harney also noted that De Casas and Wong failed to log their contact with Plaintiffs.^[18]

2. December 27, 2018

The next incident occurred four months later, when Deputies Joshua Hernandez and Joel Macias escorted non-party Salvador Zavala, a social worker with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, to serve a document on Gonzalez at Plaintiffs' residence.^[19] The document concerned the termination of Plaintiffs' parental rights relating to their shared children. Zavala requested a police escort in view of LA County social workers' past unpleasant interactions with Plaintiffs.^[20]

When Zavala and the deputies arrived at Plaintiffs' residence, Zavala opened the unlocked front gate and knocked on the front door of Plaintiffs' home.^[21] There was no answer, so Zavala and the deputies departed.^[22] Just as Zavala and the deputies exited Plaintiffs' front gate, Valadez drove up. Valadez confronted Zavala and the deputies from Plaintiffs' vehicle and recorded the interaction on her cell phone.^[23] Hernandez warned Valadez that Valadez nearly ran over his foot while talking to him through the car window, and he admonished Valadez that driving while using her cellphone was illegal.^[24]Valadez told the deputies that she did not want them on Plaintiffs' property and that she perceived their presence as a threat. Macias responded that he was going to issue her a citation. Macias then handcuffed and detained Valadez.^[25] Sergeant Jesse Polanco arrived on the scene shortly thereafter, and Valadez recorded the interactions on her cell phone.^[26] Ultimately, the deputies chose not to issue a citation to Valadez.^[27] Polanco provided Valadez with his business card and badge number so that Valadez could file a complaint, which she did later that day.^[28] Lieutenant Paul Patterson received Valadez's complaint and collected her statement and cell phone video of the interaction.^[29] After reviewing the witness interviews and all of the evidence, Patterson concluded that Macias and Hernandez's conduct was reasonable.^[30]

3. January 19, 2019

Three weeks later, Valadez encountered two unidentified LASD deputies on the sidewalk near the front gate of Plaintiffs' residence. While recording the event on her cell phone, Valadez confronted the deputies and asked why they were trying to enter her property. After briefly peering over Valadez's gate and telling her who they were seeking, the deputies walked past Plaintiffs' residence and entered the front gate of their neighbor's property.^[31]

4. January 22, 2019

The parties agree that Deputy Macias and non-party Deputy Anthony Lopez arrested Gonzalez on January 22, 2019, but the facts surrounding the apprehension are disputed. Defendants claim that the deputies detained Gonzalez during a traffic stop because the windows on Plaintiffs' vehicle were excessively tinted, in violation of California law.^[32] During the stop, Macias ran Gonzalez's information through a police database and discovered that Gonzalez had an outstanding warrant. Macias and Anthony Lopez^[33] then arrested Gonzalez pursuant to that warrant.^[34]

Plaintiffs present a different version of the facts.^[35] Gonzalez claims that on an unspecified day in January 2019, he was retrieving his mail when Macias and an unidentified deputy appeared, handcuffed him, and...