Moriah Zeigler v. County of San Luis Obispo et al

Filing 227

JUDGMENT AND ORDER by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: (see document for further details) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

) Case No.: 2:17-cv-09295-MWF(AFMx)
)
) JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO;
)
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
)
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
)
SERVICES; SAN LUIS OBISPO
)
COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; TERI WARKENTIN, )
an individual; DIANA STEINHAUER, )
an individual; LINDA GENDRON, an )
)
individual; DESILYN TRAHAN, an
individual; JOCELYN McCURRY, an )
)
individual; GREGORY ROACH, an
individual; ALFREDO CAMPOS, an )
individual; and DOES 1 through 100; )
)
)
Defendants.
)
MORIAH ZEIGLER,

24
25

On March 4, 2019, Defendants COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, TERI

26

WARKENTIN, DIANA STEINHAUER, LINDA GENDRON, DESILYN TRAHAN,

27

JOCELYN McCURRY, GREGORY ROACH, AND ALFREDO CAMPOS

28
1

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed their motion for summary judgment or in the

2

alternative, partial summary judgment;

3

On May 16, 2019, the Court issued its Order and Defendants’ motion for

4

summary judgment was DENIED as to the extent it was based on Plaintiff’s First Claim

5

premised on Officers GREGORY ROACH and ALFREDO CAMPOS’ warrantless entry

6

into the home; it was DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Second claim made pursuant to Monell to

7

the extent it was premised on the County’s policy of subjecting children to forensic

8

medical examinations absent parental consent or a warrant; it was GRANTED as to

9

Plaintiff’s First Claim for relief for violation of various federal civil rights to the extent it

10

was premised on Plaintiff’s child E.Z.’s removal from the home; it was GRANTED as to

11

Plaintiff’s Second Claim for relief for municipal liability pursuant to Monell to the extent

12

it is premised on the County’s alleged policy of placing children into protective custody

13

absent warrants; it was GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Third Claim for violation of various

14

state civil rights to the extent they were premised on E.Z.’s warrantless removal; it was

15

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for relief for violation of California Civil

16

Code § 43 to the extent it was premised on E.Z.’s warrantless removal; it was

17

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for judicial deception pursuant to California

18

Government Code § 820.21; it was GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for relief for

19

failure to comply with mandatory duties pursuant to California Government Code §

20

815.6 to the extent it was premised on E.Z’s warrantless removal; it was GRANTED as

21

to Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim for relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress to

22

the extent it is premised on E.Z.’s warrantless removal;

23

On February 15, 2022, the Parties stipulated that Defendant COUNTY OF SAN

24

LUIS OBISPO admitted liability as to Plaintiff’s Monell claim premised on the County’s

25

policy of subjecting children to forensic medical examinations absent parental consent or

26

a warrant; the Parties agreed to hold trial solely for Plaintiff’s damages regarding the

27

Monell claim; Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the law enforcement claims against Defendants

28

GREGORY ROACH and ALFREDO CAMPOS; Plaintiff would make a motion for
2

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1

attorney’s fees and costs regarding the admitted Monell claim; the Parties further

2

stipulated that Plaintiff shall retain the right to appeal the holding in Defendants’ granted

3

summary judgment motion;

4

On June 7, 2022, the Parties held a settlement conference with the Court and

5

reached a settlement regarding Plaintiff’s Monell claim premised on the County’s policy

6

of subjecting children to forensic medical examinations absent parental consent or a

7

warrant;

8

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed her motion for attorney’s fees and costs;

9

On March 1, 2023, the Court GRANTED, in part, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s

10

fees and costs, awarding $144,463.64 in attorney’s fees and $48,011.66 in costs.

11
12
13
14
15
16

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED THAT:
1. This action came to a hearing before the Court. The issues have been heard
and a decision has been rendered.
2. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s First Claim for

17

relief for violation of various federal civil rights to the extent it was premised on

18

Plaintiff’s child E.Z.’s removal from the home;

19

3. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Second Claim

20

for relief for municipal liability pursuant to Monell to the extent it is premised on

21

the County’s alleged policy of placing children into protective custody absent

22

warrants;

23

4. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Third Claim for

24

violation of various state civil rights to the extent they were premised on E.Z.’s

25

warrantless removal;

26

5. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim

27

for relief for violation of California Civil Code § 43 to the extent it was premised

28

on E.Z.’s warrantless removal;
3

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1
2
3

6. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for
judicial deception pursuant to California Government Code § 820.21;
7. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for

4

relief for failure to comply with mandatory duties pursuant to California

5

Government Code § 815.6 to the extent it was premised on E.Z’s warrantless

6

removal;

7

8. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim

8

for relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress to the extent it is premised

9

on E.Z.’s warrantless removal.

10

9. Plaintiff is awarded $144,463.64 in attorney’s fees and $48,011.66 in costs.

11

10. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained by this Court for all matters

12

including the administration, interpretation, or enforcement of the stipulation,

13

settlement, enforcement of the Order for attorney’s fees and costs, this Order and

14

Final Judgment.

15

11. Immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is directed pursuant to Rule

16

54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: March 27, 2023
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

JUDGMENT AND ORDER