April J. Grundfor v. Janet Bouffard et al

Filing 168

ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.: For the reasons stated herein, the motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) is GRANTED. It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Judgment is entered in favor of Def endants Janet Bouffard, Carrie Friend, and Stephen Sisk-Provencio and against Plaintiff April J. Grund as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. It is further Ordered that Plaintiff shall take nothing. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (cw)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12

APRIL GRUNDFOR,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
JANET BOUFFARD, et al.,
Defendants.

17

CV 16-04163 TJH (AGRx)

Order
and
Judgment

JS-6

18
19

The Court has considered Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law

20

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), together with the moving and opposing papers, and the

21

parties’ oral arguments.

22

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when the evidence presented at trial

23

– viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences

24

in her favor – permits only one reasonable conclusion. See Torres v. City of L.A., 548

25

F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008).

26

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when an

27

official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a

28

reasonable person would have known. See Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 987 (9th
Order – Page 1 of 3

1

Cir. 2006). The law is clearly settled that a public employee is entitled to First

2

Amendment protection if, inter alia, the employee speaks as a private citizen – that is,

3

outside the course and scope of employment. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418

4

(2006). The law is, also, clearly settled that a public employee is not entitled to First

5

Amendment protection if her speech was made within the course and scope of

6

employment. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418.

7

Accordingly, qualified immunity shields Defendants, here, from liability if

8

Plaintiff’s speech to Officer Durfee was within the course and scope of her

9

employment. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418. Even in the light most favorable to

10

Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, there was insufficient

11

evidence to support a finding that Plaintiff spoke as a public citizen and not within the

12

course and scope of her government employment. See Hagen v. City of Eugene, 736

13

F.3d 1251, 1257-1260 (9th Cir. 2013). Consequently, Defendants are entitled to

14

qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s speech to Officer Durfee. See Garcetti, 547 U.S.

15

at 418.

16

Moreover, Plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish an element

17

of her claim of First Amendment retaliation – that she spoke as a private citizen –

18

further entitling Defendants to a judgment as a matter of law. See Eng v. Cooley, 552

19

F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009).

20

The Court previously determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified

21

immunity for their decision to consider Plaintiff’s File Notes to support, in whole or

22

in part, their decision to terminate Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff lacks a viable basis to

23

support her First Amendment retaliation claim.

24
25

Accordingly,

26
27
28

It is Ordered that Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law be, and
hereby is, Granted.
Order – Page 2 of 3

1

It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Judgment be, and hereby

2

is, Entered in favor of Defendants Janet Bouffard, Carrie Friend, and Stephen Sisk-

3

Provencio and against Plaintiff April Grundfor as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment

4

retaliation claim.

5
6

It is further Ordered that Plaintiff shall take nothing.

7
8
9
10
11

Date: March 7, 2018
__________________________________
Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order – Page 3 of 3