Fox et al v. Anderson et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/10/12 ORDERING that Defendants' 45 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. The court allowed Plaintiffs to submit supplemental evidence regarding Plaintiffs' expert qualifications and to provide evidence previously omitted inadvertently, to which Defendants may reply. Following these filings, the Court will determine whether such evidence should be considered, and issue a ruling as to these Defendants.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99180
John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301
350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON,
RICH COCKERTON, BRENDAN MCATEE, and CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

6
7
8
9

Lanny T. Winberry, SBN 85341
LAW OFFICES OF LANNY T. WINBERRY
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95826
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

Attorney for Plaintiffs
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15

BARRY FOX, NARCISA FOX, individually
and as parents and natural guardians and
Guardians ad litem of ANTHONY FOX,
DANIEL FOX, SAMUEL FOX AND MARIO
FOX, minors,

16

Case No. 2:11-cv-00419-JAM-KJN
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION

Plaintiffs,

17

vs.

18

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT
ANDERSON, R. COCKERTON, B. MCATEE,
ELISA OLMO, SOKA OM, JASON WALKUP,
JOY PIKE, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA,
JASMINE DELGADO and DOES 1
THROUGH 30,

19
20
21

Defendants.
22

/

23

The Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication made by

24

Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT ANDERSON, RICH COCKERTON,

25

BRENDAN MCATEE, and the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA came regularly for hearing August

26

22, 2012, before the Honorable District Court Judge John A Mendez. John R. Whitefleet of Porter,

27

Scott appeared as counsel for Defendants and Lanny T. Winberry appeared as counsel for Plaintiffs

28

After full consideration of the moving papers, the evidence, and all documents submitted by both

PORTER * SCOTT
ATTORNEYS
3 5 0 U N IV E R S I T Y A V E ., S U I T E 2 0 0
SACRAM EN T O , CA 95825
T E L : 9 1 6 . 9 2 9 .1 4 8 1
F A X : 9 1 6 . 9 2 7 .3 7 0 6

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART , DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS M SJ
Case No. CV 11 0419 JAM

www.porterscott.com

01056711.WPD

1

parties, as well as the oral argument made at the time of the hearing, the court orders the following:

2

1.

3

Narcisa Fox claim, if any, under the Fourth Amendment arising from the seizure of the Minor

4

children Plaintiffs (but not the entry into the Plaintiffs’ home) is granted;

5

2.

6

under the Fourth Amendment, and related claims of Plaintiffs Barry Fox and Narcisa Fox under the

7

Fourteenth Amendment, arising from the removal of the children and the Motion for Summary

8

Adjudication of Fourth Amendment claims of all Plaintiffs regarding entry into the residence each

9

present a triable issues of fact, and are therefore denied. The Court rejects Defendants’ argument

10

that Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting the seizure was unlawful or that the Rooker-Feldman

11

doctrine bars relitigation of these matters for the reasons stated at the hearing on the motion.

12

3.

13

Summary Adjudication seeking qualified immunity is denied because there are triable issues of fact

14

which preclude the court from determining qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding;

15

4.

16

by the filing of the Petition or the independent decision of the Juvenile Court to continue the

17

detention of the minor Plaintiffs is denied, insofar as there are triable issues of fact.

18

5.

19

relief with respect to removing Plaintiffs from the Child Abuse Criminal Index is granted, as

20

Defendants do not appear to be the proper parties for such relief. The Motion seeking to dismiss the

21

Injunctive relief in all other respects is denied.

22

6.

23

the claims against Defendant BRENDAN MCATEE, whether MCATEE is entitled to qualified

24

immunity, and the Monell-type claims against Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and the

25

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA are taken under submission. The Court directed further briefing

26

and allowed supplementation of evidence as to DEFENDANT MCATEE’s actions in that certain

27

contentions in regard to Defendant MCATEE’s actions were first raised in Defendants’ Reply

28

Memorandum. The Court directed further briefing on the issue of the potential for both the CITY

PORTER * SCOTT
ATTORNEYS
3 5 0 U N IV E R S I T Y A V E ., S U I T E 2 0 0
SACRAM EN T O , CA 95825
T E L : 9 1 6 . 9 2 9 .1 4 8 1
F A X : 9 1 6 . 9 2 7 .3 7 0 6

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to Plaintiffs Barry Fox and

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to minor Plaintiffs’ claims

The individual Defendants SCOTT ANDERSON and RICH COCKERTON’s Motion for

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to whether damages are limited

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication seeking to dismiss the request for Injunctive

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to Summary Adjudication of

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART , DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS M SJ
Case No. CV 11 0419 JAM

www.porterscott.com

01056711.WPD

1

and the COUNTY to be held jointly and severally liable for the Monell-type claims. At the request

2

of Plaintiffs, the court allowed Plaintiffs to submit supplemental evidence regarding Plaintiffs’

3

expert qualifications and to provide evidence previously omitted inadvertently, to which Defendants

4

may reply.

5

considered, and issue a ruling as to these Defendants.

Following these filings, the Court will determine whether such evidence should be

6
7

Dated: 9/10/2012

8

/s/ John A. Mendez
Honorable John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PORTER* SCOTT
ATTORNEYS

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART , DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS M SJ
Case No. CV 11 0419 JAM

3 5 0 U N IV E R S I T Y A V E ., S U I T E 2 0 0
SACRAM EN T O , CA 95825
T E L : 9 1 6 . 9 2 9 .1 4 8 1
F A X : 9 1 6 . 9 2 7 .3 7 0 6
w w w .p o r te r s c o tt.c o m

01056711.WPD