Bui v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
162
ORDER DENYING 159 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE THE STAY PENDING APPEAL. The court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion. In light of Defendants' appeal, the court vacates all remaining dates and deadlines currently set by this court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/9/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
CHIEN VAN BUI, et al.,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
No. C 11-04189 LB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO VACATE THE STAY
PENDING APPEAL
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
[Re: ECF No. 159]
15
16
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
17
18
INTRODUCTION
Defendants have appealed this court’s July 25, 2014 Amended Order Granting in Part and
19
Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
20
Normally, an appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over all but tangential matters,
21
effectively staying the case. Plaintiffs have filed the instant motion that asks the court to declare
22
Defendants’ appeal frivolous so that the court may retain jurisdiction over the case and proceed to
23
trial. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for determination
24
without oral argument and vacates the October 16, 2014 hearing. Upon consideration of the papers
25
submitted and the applicable authority, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.
STATEMENT
26
27
28
In this civil rights action, Chien Van Bui and Ai Huynh (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the parents of
decedent Vinh Van Bui, known as Tony Bui (“Bui), sued San Francisco Police Officers Austin
C 11-04189 LB
ORDER
1
Wilson (“Officer Wilson”) and Timothy Ortiz (“Officer Ortiz”), and the City and County of San
2
Francisco (“CCSF”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for the death of their son. Complaint, ECF No. 1.
3
They brought the following claims: (1) as successors in interest to Bui's estate and pursuant to 42
4
U.S.C. § 1983, a claim against Officers Ortiz and Wilson for violation of Bui's Fourth Amendment
5
right to be free from excessive force; (2) on their own behalf and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
6
claim against Officers Ortiz and Wilson for interference with their Fourteenth Amendment due
7
process liberty interest in their parental relationship with Bui; (3) as successors in interest to Bui's
8
estate and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
9
(1978), a claim against The CCSF for failure to train; and (4) on their own behalf and pursuant to
California Civil Procedure Code § 377.60, a claim against The CCSF (under a theory of respondeat
11
superior) for wrongful death. Id. ¶¶ 29-53.
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
Defendants moved for summary judgment on all four claims. Summary Judgment Motion, ECF
13
No. 81. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, except as to the Monell claim. Summary Judgment
14
Opposition, ECF No. 120. Defendants argued in their summary judgment motion that (1) Officers
15
Ortiz and Wilson acted reasonably as a matter of law and in any event were entitled to qualified
16
immunity as to Plaintiffs' claim that the officers violated Bui's Fourth Amendment right to be free
17
from excessive force, (2) Officers Ortiz and Wilson did not violate Plaintiffs' Fourteenth
18
Amendment rights to familial relationship and in any event were entitled to qualified immunity, and
19
(3) the claim for negligence against the CCSF failed because the officers were protected by certain
20
statutory privileges (and were immune) and did not act negligently. See Summary Judgment
21
Motion, ECF No. 81. The court denied Defendants' summary judgment motion on all grounds as to
22
these three claims (and granted Defendants summary judgment on the Monell claim). See 6/27/14
23
Order, ECF No. 137. Following Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration,
24
the court issued an amended order, which did not change the holdings, primarily to clarify certain
25
citations to the record, the evidence the court considered when making its decisions, and the court’s
26
reasoning regarding its denial of qualified immunity. See 7/25/14 Amended Order, ECF No. 146 at
27
1 n.1.
28
Defendants timely appealed the court’s amended order. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 150.
C 11-04189 LB
ORDER
2
1
Defendants asserted: “Jurisdiction exists for the Court of Appeal to review legal questions pertinent
2
to Appellants’ claims of qualified immunity and state law immunity, including but not limited to,
3
whether a reasonable officer would have been aware that he was violating plaintiff’s constitutional
4
rights, and whether the law prohibiting such was ‘clearly established,’ such that no reasonable
5
officer could conclude that lethal force was unnecessary against a suspect who had committed a
6
crime of violence when he stabbed a young woman inside his house, where the officers, who had
7
been summoned to the house where the stabbing occurred, and who had probable cause to arrest
8
[the] suspect for that crime, while attempting to effect an arrest of the suspect for that violent crime,
9
located the suspect, who was still armed with that knife and inside the house where other innocent
knife, advanced slowly down a narrow 20 foot hallway toward the officers to within 5-7 feet of
12
For the Northern District of California
people were present, and who instead of complying with officers[’] repeated orders to drop the
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
them, while the officers retreated, and where the officers had only second to react.” Id. at 2-3.
13
Plaintiffs now move for a written order certifying Defendants' appeal as frivolous, so that the
14
court can proceed with trial. See Motion, ECF No. 159. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. See
15
Opposition, ECF No. 160.
16
ANALYSIS
17
In Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit “recognized an
18
exception to the general rule that a valid notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction
19
over all but tangential matters.” Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1017 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996). This
20
exception applies in cases in which the district court certifies in writing that the defendant’s
21
interlocutory appeal is “frivolous” or has been “waived.” Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105. “‘An appeal is
22
frivolous is the results are obvious, or the arguments of error are wholly without merit.’” In re
23
George, 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 411
24
(9th Cir. 1990)). An appeal that is wholly without merit is one that is “‘so baseless that it does not
25
invoke appellate jurisdiction,’ such as when ‘the disposition is so plainly correct that nothing can be
26
said on the other side.’” Schering Corp. v. First DataBank Inc., No. C 07-01142 WHA, 2007 WL
27
1747115, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2007) (quoting Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335, 1339 (7th Cir.
28
1989)). In the absence of such written certification, the district court is automatically divested of
C 11-04189 LB
ORDER
3
1
jurisdiction to proceed with trial. Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105.
immunity defense “‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their
4
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
5
person would have known.’” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305 (1996) (quoting Harlow v.
6
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). The Ninth Circuit has “distilled the following rule for
7
interlocutory appeals from the denial of qualified immunity: We do not have jurisdiction over
8
interlocutory appeals from district court orders that decide only whether there exists sufficient
9
evidence to sustain the material facts shown by the plaintiff. However, we are instructed that we do
10
have jurisdiction from district court orders that decide not only that material facts are in dispute, but
11
also that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional
12
For the Northern District of California
Defendants appeal the court’s denial of their assertion of qualified immunity. The qualified
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
rights. When exercising jurisdiction over the latter type of order, we resolve all factual disputes in
13
favor of the plaintiff and look at the purely legal question of whether the defendant’s alleged
14
conduct violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Cunningham v. City of
15
Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
16
Here, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ appeal is frivolous because “it involves issues of fact
17
that Defendants[’] actions violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable police officer
18
would have known.” Motion, ECF No. 159 at 12. They list numerous factual disputes about what
19
happened the day that Bui was killed and contend that Defendants do not accept all of their facts as
20
true in their appeal. See id. at 13-17. In response, Defendants say that Plaintiffs mischaracterize
21
their appeal. See Opposition, ECF No. 160 at 6. They say that they “intend to raise issues of law as
22
to whether the officers violated a clearly established right given the undisputed facts and also issues
23
of whether there is a genuine dispute about the underlying facts to the extent that such facts are
24
inextricably intertwined with determining whether a right was violated.” Id. They also say that they
25
also will argue that the stipulated record (i.e., the undisputed facts) alone warrant a finding of
26
qualified immunity. Id.
27
To declare the appeal frivolous, the court must find that it is “wholly without merit.” United
28
States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1003 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002); see Piping Rock Partners,
C 11-04189 LB
ORDER
4
2013) (noting that "the standard for a frivolous appeal ‘is quite high,’ and frivolity should be found
3
in cases where the appeal is either ‘wholly without merit' or the outcome is ‘obvious’”) (citations
4
omitted). Here, the court cannot say that it is. Despite the general wording of their notice of appeal,
5
and as the court recalls from the summary judgment papers and oral argument, Defendants say the
6
court made erred for two reasons: (1) the record does not support Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, so
7
there is no genuine dispute of material fact; and (2) even assuming Plaintiffs’ version of the facts,
8
Officers Ortiz and Wilson are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. See Opposition, ECF No.
9
160 at 6; see also Transcript of June 26, 2014 Hearing, ECF No. 158 at 6 (Mr. Connolly: “And we
10
submitted a joint statement [of material facts] and it’s on that joint statement of stipulated facts that
11
we’re relying. In fact, most of the immaterial facts are not in dispute; but importantly, from an
12
For the Northern District of California
Inc. v. David Lerner Assocs., Inc., No. C 12-04634 SI, 2013 WL 3458215, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9,
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
officer’s perspective, the analysis that we’re engaging in in this particular motion, the material facts
13
are not in dispute.”), 16 (Mr. Connolly: “I don’t think it matters what position the knife is in as long
14
as Bui has the knife in his hand and as long as he continues to advance at the officers, it’s immaterial
15
whether or not the knife was at his side or above his head.”), 18 (Mr. Connolly: “[I]t doesn’t matter
16
how fast or slow someone with a knife advances at you.”; Mr. Connolly: “What I’m saying is that
17
it’s legally irrelevant to whether or not how fast he was advancing under the case or exactly what
18
position the knife was [in].”), 22 (Mr. Connolly: “The other thing I was going to mention was there
19
was some attempt by plaintiffs to argue that Bui was merely trying to leave through the front door
20
and he wasn’t — because he was trying to do that, he wasn’t a threat to the police officers. I want to
21
make sure that it’s understood that the testimony does not support that argument.”), 27-28 (Mr.
22
Connolly: “[T]he only thing they court really needs to read is the stipulated — the joint stipulated
23
statement because that in itself . . . is enough.”), 29 (“[E]very case that comes before you is going to
24
have some degree of disputed fact. What’s important here is the material facts that are not in
25
dispute.”), 30 (The Court: “I understand your argument perfectly, which is that the fact discrepancies
26
I’m pointing to[,] you think are immaterial to what the officers reasonably thought at the time.”). It
27
appears that Defendants do accept Plaintiffs’ version of the allegedly material facts as true for
28
purposes of their appeal. On this record, then, the court will not certify Defendants’ appeal as
C 11-04189 LB
ORDER
5
1
frivolous.
2
CONCLUSION
3
Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. In light of Defendants’ appeal,
4
5
6
the court vacates all remaining dates and deadlines currently set by this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-04189 LB
ORDER
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?