Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al

Filing 169

TENTATIVE RULING GRANTING SUA SPONTE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW FALSE ARREST CLAIMS signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 4/10/12. "Because the undisputed facts indicate that [Defendants] accepted delivery of [Plaintiffs] after [Young] made a citizen's arrest," partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' state law false arrest claim is tentatively GRANTED. Arpin, 261 F.3d at 921 (9th Cir. 2001). Any party may file and serv e written objections to any part of this tentative ruling no later than 5/14/12. Any objection must specify the requested correction, addition, and/or deletion. Any response to an objection shall be filed and served no later than 5/21/12. If no objection is filed, this tentative ruling will become final without further order of this Court. If an objection is filed, this matter may be scheduled for hearing on 6/4/12 at 9:00 a.m. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Markus M. Hall, Monique G.
Rankin, Lindsey K. Sanders,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14
15

v.
City of Fairfield, Officer Nick
McDowell, Officer Chris Grimm,
Officer Tom Shackford, Officer
Zack Sandoval, and Sergeant
Steve Crane,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00508-GEB-DAD
TENTATIVE RULING GRANTING SUA
SPONTE PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFFS’
STATE LAW FALSE ARREST CLAIMS

16

In reviewing the parties’ pretrial filings, it appears “the

17

undisputed facts entitle [Defendants] to judgment as a matter of law” on

18

Plaintiffs’ state law false arrest claims. Portsmouth Square, Inc. v.

19

S’holders Prot. Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985). Therefore, for

20

the reasons stated below, the Court tentatively grants summary judgment,

21

sua sponte, in favor of Defendants on those claims.
I. LEGAL STANDARD

22
23

“District courts unquestionably possess the power to enter

24

summary judgment sua sponte, even on the eve of trial.” Norse v. City of

25

Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2010). As prescribed in Federal

26

Rule

27

reasonable time to respond, the court may . . . consider summary

of

Civil

Procedure

56(f)(3):

28
1

“[a]fter

giving

notice

and

a

1

judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts

2

that may not be genuinely in dispute.”

3
4

II. DISCUSSION
In their Trial Brief, Defendants contend “Defendants are

5

immune from Plaintiffs’ claims of false arrest.”

6

6:6-7.) Defendants argue, “[u]nder California law, an officer who

7

accepts delivery of a person following a citizen’s arrest is not liable

8

for false arrest or false imprisonment even if the officer determines

9

that there is no grounds for making a criminal complaint[,]” and in this

10

case, “[t]here is no dispute that Marc Young authorized a citizen’s

11

arrest of each Plaintiff[.]” Id. at 6:7-12 (quoting Arpin v. Santa Clara

12

Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 920-21 (9th Cir. 2001).

(Defs.’ Trial Brief

13

Plaintiffs respond in their Rebuttal Trial Brief, arguing,

14

“[n]one of the[] cases [cited by Defendants] support [their] contention

15

that by virtue of Mr. Young’s signature on the citizen’s arrest form

16

alone that they are somehow immunized from Plaintiffs’ state . . . false

17

arrest claims.” (Pls.’ Rebuttal Trial Brief 5:5-7.) Plaintiffs further

18

counter, “even where an arrest is made by a citizen witness, police

19

officers must establish probable cause to effectuate the arrest, and in

20

order to establish probable cause an officer may not rely on the claim

21

of a citizen witness but must independently investigate the basis of the

22

citizen’s knowledge or interview other witnesses[.]” Id. at 5:9-12.

23

“Where a citizen's arrest is at issue, . . . the federal and

24

state requirements for probable cause, and therefore reasonableness,

25

diverge.” Bolbol v. City of Daly City, 754 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1115 (N.D.

26

Cal. 2010). “[T]he federal Constitution requires police officers to have

27

independent probable cause when effectuating a citizen’s arrest[.]”

28

Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 774 (9th Cir. 2009). Whereas under
2

1

state law, “[a] peace officer who accepts custody of a person following

2

a citizen’s arrest is not required to correctly determine whether the

3

arrest was justified, and cannot be held liable for the arrest if it was

4

improper.” Hamburg v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 497, 503

5

(2004)(internal citation omitted); see also Meyers v. Redwood City, 400

6

F.3d 765, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2005)(stating “California courts have held

7

that . . . an officer cannot be sued civilly if he makes [an arrest

8

pursuant to a citizen’s arrest] and, it turns out, there were no grounds

9

for the citizen’s arrest”).

10

In this case it appears undisputed that all three Plaintiffs

11

were arrested pursuant to Mr. Young’s citizen arrest since the parties

12

state the following are “undisputed facts” in their Amended Joint

13

Pretrial Statement (“AJPS”):

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(j) One of the officers re-entered the
restaurant and asked Mr. Young if he would sign a
citizen’s arrest, which he agreed to do. However,
Mr. Young could not see what was occurring in the
parking lot.
(k) Defendant Officers were later joined by
Sergeant Crane. Based on i n f o r m a t i o n h e h a d
received from Officer McDowell, which included that
Mr. Young had told him that he would be willing to
file a citizen’s arrest, Sergeant Crane ordered
that the Defendant Officers arrest Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs were later charged with criminal
trespass under Penal Code section 602.1(a) and
resisting
arrest
under
Penal
Code
section
148(a)(1).

22
23

(AJPS, 3:4, 4:12-19.) Further, the arrest reports for each Plaintiff

24

include a “Citizens Arrest Statement” by Marc Young, which state the

25

following: “I hereby arrest the above person on the charge indicated

26

herein and request a peace officer to take him/her into custody.” See

27

Arrest Reports of Monique Rankin, Markus Hall and Lindsey Sanders pp.

28
3

1

000403-000410, filed as Ex. E to the Decl. of Garret D. Murai in Supp.

2

of Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. Adjudication, ECF No. 56-2.

3

“Because

the

delivery

of

undisputed

facts

indicate

that

[Defendants]

[Young]

made

a

4

accepted

5

arrest,” partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ state law false arrest

6

claim is tentatively granted. Arpin, 261 F.3d at 921 (9th Cir. 2001).

7

Any party may file and serve written objections to any part of this

8

tentative ruling no later than May 14, 2012. Any objection must specify

9

the requested correction, addition, and/or deletion. Any response to an

10

objection shall be filed and served no later than May 21, 2012. If no

11

objection is filed, this tentative ruling will become final without

12

further order of this Court. If an objection is filed, this matter may

13

be scheduled for hearing on June 4, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

14

Dated:

[Plaintiffs]

after

April 10, 2012

15
16
17

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

citizen’s