Moody v. County of Santa Clara et al
Filing
91
Order granting 87 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on November 25, 2019. All pretrial deadlines and hearing dates are VACATED and any pending motions are TERMINATED. The Clerk shall close the file.(ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
DON MOODY,
Case No. 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
10
11
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 87
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
Defendants County of Santa Clara and Bruce Wagstaff seek summary judgment for
13
14
Plaintiff Don Moody’s remaining substantive due process claim. They argue that, as a matter of
15
law and based on undisputed material facts, Plaintiff cannot make a showing sufficient to establish
16
the essential elements of his claim. The Court finds this motion suitable for consideration without
17
oral argument. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the Parties’ papers, the Court
18
GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
19
20
21
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff worked as Public Administrator/Public Guardian for the County of Santa Clara
22
from September 2008 to September 2014. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶¶ 22, 32, Dkt.
23
52. The Office of the Public Guardian is a program in the County’s Department of Aging and
24
Adult Services (“DAAS”), which is within the County’s Social Services Agency (“SSA”). Id.
25
¶ 18. Plaintiff oversaw three programs: (1) Probate Conservatorships; (2) Mental Health
26
Conservatorships; and (3) Public Administrator. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff reported to James Ramoni, the
27
Director of DAAS, and to Defendant Bruce Wagstaff, the Director of SSA. Id. ¶ 19.
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
1
In 2012 and 2014, during Plaintiff’s tenure, news articles were published criticizing the
2
Public Guardian’s Office for its handling of conservatorship cases. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 27. In 2013
3
and 2014, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued reports critical of the Office and
4
identified operational areas in need of improvement. Id. ¶ 26, 28.
5
In August 2014, Bruce Wagstaff and James Ramoni learned that the Public Guardian’s
6
Office had failed for nine months to implement two separate court orders directing the Public
7
Guardian to transfer conservatees from locked mental health facilities to less restrictive
8
placements. Declaration of Paul S. Avilla (“Avilla Decl.”), Dkt. 87-2, Ex. A (“Wagstaff Depo.”)
9
at 82–83, 85; Id., Ex. B (“Ramoni Depo.”) at 127–29. Thereafter, Defendant Wagstaff called a
meeting with Plaintiff, James Ramoni, and others to discuss the Public Guardian’s failure to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
comply with the two court orders. Ramoni Depo. at 128. After this first meeting, based on the
12
responses Plaintiff gave, Defendant Wagstaff started to “express serious concerns about [Plaintiff]
13
continuing as Public Guardian.” Id.
14
On September 25, 2014, Defendant Wagstaff and James Ramoni met with Plaintiff in a
15
conference room on the fifth floor of the County building (one floor up from Plaintiff’s office).
16
Id. at 159–61. During this meeting they informed Plaintiff that he was being placed on paid
17
administrative leave for failure to adequately and effectively perform his job duties to the level
18
expected of an executive manager. Wagstaff Depo. at 104, 133. At the end of the meeting,
19
Defendant Wagstaff instructed Ramoni to accompany Plaintiff back to Plaintiff’s office to collect
20
Plaintiff’s county phone, keys, and security access card. Ramoni Depo. at 162, 164. Ramoni was
21
instructed to escort Plaintiff out of the building. Id. at 162, 170–71. Plaintiff alleges that he saw
22
several employees walking back to his office on the fourth floor and when he exited the building.
23
Avilla Decl., Ex. C (“Moody Depo.”) at 22–23.
24
Later that day, Jennifer Wadsworth, a reporter from the Metro newspaper and its online
25
version, San Jose Inside, contacted the County to confirm that Plaintiff had been fired and that he
26
was escorted out of the building. Declaration of James Ramoni (“Ramoni Decl.”) ¶¶ 5–6, Dkt. 87-
27
3, Ex. A & B. Gwen Mitchell, the County’s Public Relations Officer, is quoted in the news article
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2
1
“County Public Guardian Put on Leave, Escorted out of Building” confirming that Plaintiff was
2
placed on leave, but declining to comment further. Avilla Decl., Ex. G.
B. Procedural History
3
On October 24, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that
4
5
Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient material facts to meet the essential elements of his claim.
6
Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), Dkt. 87. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 7,
7
2019. Opposition/Response re Motion for Summary Judgment (“Opp.”), Dkt. 88. On November
8
14, 2019, Defendants submitted a reply. Reply re Motion for Summary Judgment (“Reply”), Dkt.
9
89.
10
II.
A court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows “that there is no genuine
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
LEGAL STANDARD
12
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
13
Civ. P. 56(a). In order to satisfy this burden, “the moving party must either produce evidence
14
negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the
15
nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate
16
burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d
17
1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). “In order to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion on the motion, the
18
moving party must persuade the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Id.
If the moving party meets its burden of production, the nonmoving party must produce
19
20
evidence to support its claim or defense. Id. at 1103. If the nonmoving party fails to produce
21
enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, Rule 56(c) mandates the moving party
22
win the motion for summary judgment. See id.
23
24
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, that he was denied his substantive due
25
process rights. He argues the “walkout” and Defendants subsequent “leak” of negative
26
information about Plaintiff effectively precluded him from achieving future work in his chosen
27
profession. SAC ¶ 62. He also alleges that Defendants’ acts were so arbitrary and capricious they
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3
1
“shock the conscience” and are causally connected1 to Plaintiff’s difficulty in securing further
2
employment in the healthcare field. Id. ¶¶ 67–69.
3
A. Occupational Liberty
1. Nature of the Protected Right
4
The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of
5
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” covers a substantive sphere and bars “certain
7
government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Cty. of
8
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 839 (1998) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702,
9
719 (1997); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113,
10
125 (1990) (noting substantive due process violations are actionable under Section 1983). “A
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
threshold requirement to a substantive or procedural due process claim is the plaintiff’s showing
12
of a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution.” Wedges/Ledges of Cal., Inc. v. City
13
of Phx., Ariz., 24 F.3d 56, 62 (9th Cir. 1994). “[M]ost courts have rejected the claim that
14
substantive due process protects the right to a particular public employment position.” Engquist
15
v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 478 F.3d 985, 996–97 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added), aff’d on other
16
grounds, Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008).
While the Ninth Circuit has not recognized a substantive due process right to a particular
17
18
public employment position, it has recognized a more general substantive due process claim of
19
occupational liberty. Engquist, 478 F.3d at 997. The Engquist court concluded that a public
20
employer’s violation of occupational liberty, that is the employer’s interference with an
21
employee’s ability to pursue a chosen field altogether, presented a substantive due process claim.
22
Id. at 997–98. Occupational liberty, however, presents a narrow substantive due process right—it
23
only reaches a government employer’s actions that are tantamount to legislation or regulation that
24
forecloses access entirely to a particular profession. Id. at 998. Indeed, the right is limited to
25
26
27
28
1
Because the Court holds that Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to show he is
precluded from achieving work in his chosen field and that Defendants acts were arbitrary and
capricious, it does not reach the causation argument.
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
4
1
“extreme cases,” such as a “‘government blacklist, which when circulated or otherwise publicized
2
to prospective employers effectively excludes the blacklisted individual from his occupation,
3
much as if the government had yanked the license of an individual in an occupation that requires
4
licensure.’” Id. at 997–98 (quoting Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 1997)). In
5
such “extreme cases,” the concerns about federal courts reviewing every public employee
6
discharge are not implicated because such a claim is only rarely colorable. Id. at 998 (citing
7
Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419, 428–29 (8th Cir. 1999)). Hence, while the substantive due
8
process right to occupational liberty is narrow, it does exist. Plaintiff thus has met his burden to
9
show the existence of a right to continued employment in his chosen field.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendants argue that the evidence is insufficient to show that Plaintiff was deprived of his
right to pursue a profession. Reply at 3–5. The Court agrees.
In order to bring an occupational liberty claim, a plaintiff must show that the “character
14
and circumstances of a public employer’s stigmatizing conduct or statements . . . have destroyed
15
an employee’s freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Id. (quoting
16
Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 531 (7th Cir. 2000)). It is insufficient that
17
the employer’s stigmatizing conduct has some adverse effect on the employee’s job prospects. Id.
18
The employee must show that the stigmatizing conduct made it “virtually impossible” to find new
19
employment in his chosen field. Id. This comports with caselaw discussing the prohibition on
20
employment in the legislative context—such caselaw limits the occupational liberty cause of
21
action to cases involving a “complete prohibition” on entry into a profession. See Dittman v.
22
California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding complete prohibition implicates person’s
23
liberty interest in pursuing an occupation or profession of her choice). Occupation liberty protects
24
only the right to pursue an profession generally, it does not protect the right to pursue a specific
25
job. Engquist, 478 F.3d at 998.
26
Here, Plaintiff argues that the “walk out” and newspaper leak violated his “occupational
27
liberty” because these acts have made it “virtually impossible” for him to find new employment in
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
5
1
his chosen field (nursing home and health care administration). Opp. at 10–11. But there is a
2
substantial problem with Plaintiff’s theory. He has received job offers, interviews, and worked in
3
his chosen field since his termination as Public Guardian. Defendants presented this Court with
4
evidence that:
5
1. Plaintiff’s former employer, Ann Butler, offered to interview Plaintiff for a position in
6
health care administration approximately one month after he left the County. Plaintiff
7
declined this job due to its lower salary. See Butler Depo. at 22–24, 27–29; Moody Depo.
8
at 33–35 (“Q: So is it fair to say you decided not to pursue the Willowbrook opportunity
9
because of both the salary and the other opportunities that you were pursuing? . . . . A:
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Yes.”).
2. Plaintiff interviewed for five health care administration positions following his
12
termination. Moody Depo. at 35 (“Q: Did you decide not to pursue [the] position at
13
Willowbrook because of the salary? A: I don’t think so much because of the salary. By
14
that time, there were other interviews going on. I had an interview with a long-term care
15
company . . . . there was another interview. Most of the interviews I had for long-term care
16
were outside of this county.”); Declaration of Donald Moody (“Moody Decl.”) ¶ 4.
17
3. Since leaving the County, Plaintiff was employed (for about a half-year) in the field of
18
healthcare administration as Interim Administrator at Genesis Healthcare, Inc. Avilla
19
Decl., Ex D. at 12 (response to Interrogatory 17).
20
Plaintiff rebuts this evidence by arguing that: (1) he applied to over five hundred separate
21
employers and only received a response/interview for five of those applications; (2) he currently
22
does not work in the healthcare field; (3) he only briefly worked in the field following his
23
termination; (4) following two years of looking for healthcare related work, he reverted his
24
healthcare professional license to inactive status because he had not been working in the field; and
25
(5) the opportunities he received in the field were well-below his level of experience, usual pay,
26
and skill and thus were not “comparable” employment in his chosen field. Opp. at 10–11 (citing
27
Moody Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5; Moody Depo. at 11, 58–59).
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
6
1
Plaintiff offers an expansive interpretation of the standard enumerated in Engquist—in his
view, any effect on his right to pursue his chosen profession at a comparable level constitutes a
3
substantive due process violation. Opp. at 10. This is not the standard. The Ninth Circuit in
4
Engquist specifically narrowed its holding to “extreme cases” where an employee has been
5
“blacklisted,” “de-licensed,” or “stigmatized” to such an extent that it is “virtually impossible for
6
the employee to find new employment in his chosen field.” 478 F.3d at 997–98. Plaintiff has not
7
proven the newspaper “leak” or walkout stigmatized him to such an extent that he can no longer
8
find employment in the healthcare field. To the contrary, he has found employment; he worked in
9
the healthcare industry following his termination and received several additional opportunities in
10
the field. See supra. His arguments that he cannot find comparable employment are unavailing
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
and an attempt to stretch the occupational liberty standard announced in Engquist into something
12
it is not. Stigmatizing statements that merely cause “reduced economic returns and diminished
13
prestige, but not permanent exclusion from, or protracted interruption of, gainful employment
14
within the trade or profession” do not constitute a deprivation of liberty. Blantz v. Cal. Dep’t of
15
Corr. & Rehab., 727 F.3d 917, 922 (9th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases). Hence, loss of salary or
16
equivalent opportunities do not alone show a violation of occupational liberty. Indeed, Plaintiff’s
17
additional opportunities in his chosen industry prove that Defendants’ alleged stigmatizing actions
18
did not deprive Plaintiff his occupational liberty since he was not barred from “all employment in
19
[his] field.” Id. (quoting Roth v. Veteran’s Admin., 856 F.2d 1401, 1411 (9th Cir. 1988)). Finally,
20
Plaintiff’s attempt to compare his personal election to deactivate his license to the government
21
“yank[ing] [his] license” is unconvincing. Opp. at 10 (citing Engquist, 478 F.3d at 997–98).
22
Plaintiff elected to inactivate his license after multiple opportunities in the healthcare industry.
23
Plaintiff was thus not deprived of all opportunities in the industry and so the comparison to the
24
“government [] yank[ing] the license of an individual in an occupation that requires license” is
25
misplaced and rejected. Engquist, 478 F.3d at 997–98.
26
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that his job prospects have been adversely affected,
27
limited, and incomparable to his role as Public Guardian, without some showing of complete
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7
1
exclusion from healthcare administration, is insufficient as a matter of law to prove his
2
occupational liberty rights were violated. Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 292 (1999) (noting that
3
cases dealing with a substantive due process right to choose one’s field of private employment all
4
deal with a “complete prohibition of the right to engage in a calling, and not [some] sort of brief
5
interruption”); Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 575 (1972) (“It stretches the
6
concept too far to suggest that a person is deprived of ‘liberty’ when he simply is not rehired in
7
one job but remains as free as before to seek another.”). For these reasons, Defendants’ motion for
8
summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s occupational liberty claim is GRANTED.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
B. Arbitrariness/Capriciousness of Defendants’ Conduct
1. Nature of the Protected Right
To establish a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must first show a government
12
deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Nunez v. City of L.A., 147 F.3d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 1998).
13
Government employees can have a protected property interest in their continued employment if
14
they have a legitimate claim to tenure or if the terms of the employment make it clear that the
15
employee can be fired only for cause. Egge v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 2018 WL 2096275, at *4
16
(N.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) (discussing procedural due process). Plaintiff argues that because he can
17
only be fired for cause, he has established a protectable right to continued employment. Opp. at 5.
18
However, the interest in continued employment discussed in cases like Egge refers to a procedural,
19
not substantive, due process right. Indeed, whether a substantive due process right in continued
20
employment even exists is unclear. See Engquist, 478 F.3d at 999 (“[S]ubstantive due process
21
protects the right to pursue an entire profession, and not the right to pursue a particular job.”
22
(emphasis added)); Burch v. NC Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 158 F. Supp. 3d 449, 461 (E.D.N.C. 2016)
23
(“The right to continued public employment is created by state contract law, or other sources
24
besides the Constitution, and thus does not implicate substantive due process.”); Lum v. Jensen,
25
876 F.3d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting lack of “clear precedent” that established “an
26
entitlement to substantive due process protection for public employment and the disparity among
27
the other circuit courts in addressing this issue); Cooper v. Cate, 2011 WL 5554321, at *5 (E.D.
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
8
1
Cal. Nov. 5, 2011) (“The Ninth Circuit has recognized that there is a circuit split on the issue of
2
whether a public employee has a substantive due process right to continued employment. The
3
Ninth Circuit has noted that most courts have rejected a substantive due process right to continued
4
public employment. However, the Ninth Circuit has yet to decide whether such a substantive due
5
process right actually exists.” (citations omitted)).
6
Plaintiff fails to provide this Court with any precedent establishing a substantive due
7
process right to continued employment. See Cty. of Sacramento, 523 U.S. at 842 (cautioning
8
against “expand[ing] the concept of substantive due process”); Reply at 5 (“Plaintiff fails to cite
9
even one case in which an employment decision was found to violate an employee’s liberty
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
interest.”).
Instead of pointing this Court to precedent establishing a substantive due process right to
12
continued employment, Plaintiff generally argues that he has a right to be free from “arbitrary and
13
capricious” decision making. Opp. at 11. He argues Defendants conduct violated his substantive
14
due process rights because “it fail[ed] to substantially advance a legitimate government interest.”
15
Id. The scope of this right, however, is not as broad as Plaintiff argues. Precedent dealing with
16
“abusive executive action” has “repeatedly emphasized that only the most egregious official
17
conduct can be said to be ‘arbitrary in the constitutional sense.’” Cty. of Sacramento, 523 U.S. at
18
847 (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 129 (1992)). Thus, Plaintiff
19
must show not just that Defendants acted unfair or unjustly, he must show Defendants “abus[ed]
20
[their] power, or employ[ed] it as an instrument of oppression.” Id. (second alteration in original)
21
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
22
Notably, conscious-shocking behavior is “at the ends of tort law’s spectrum of
23
culpability.” Id. at 848. Mere negligence is insufficient—some type of intentional or malicious
24
conduct “intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest” rises to the
25
“conscience shocking” level required for a violation of substantive due process. Id. Due process
26
is not a body of constitutional law that imposes liability whenever someone cloaked with state
27
authority causes harm. Id.
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9
1
2
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Plaintiff argues Defendants’ decision to fire him violated the Due Process Clause because
it was arbitrary and capricious since the deficiencies at the Public Guardian’s office predated
4
Plaintiff’s tenure and he routinely received positive performance reviews. Opp. at 11–12. The
5
truth or falsity of the reasons for his dismissal, however, “neither enhances nor diminishes
6
[Plaintiff’s] claim that his constitutionally protected interest in liberty has been impaired.” Bishop
7
v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 349 (1976). Indeed, the federal court is “not the appropriate forum in
8
which to review the multitude of personnel decisions that are made daily by public agencies. We
9
must accept the harsh fact that numerous individual mistakes are inevitable.” Id. at 349–50. The
10
Constitution cannot be construed to require “federal judicial review for every such error.” Id. at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
350; accord Nunez, 147 F.3d at 873–74 (“There is no general liberty interest in being free from
12
capricious government action. . . . Put simply, not every social injustice has a judicial remedy.”).
13
The “walkout” and “leak” do not rise to the substantive due process violations recognized
14
in other cases. For instance, the intentional and malicious fabrication and dissemination of
15
falsehoods to deprive a government employee of her job has been deemed potentially conscience
16
shocking. Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 94 (2d Cir. 2005) (transforming the plaintiff’s substantive
17
due process claims into the particularized constitutional allegations). Similarly, the intentional
18
and deliberate covering up of evidence that supported an employee’s claim to a promotion has
19
been found to “shock the conscience.” Robinson v. City of Ark. City, Kan., 912 F. Supp. 2d 1045,
20
1064 (D. Kan. 2012). Outside the employment context, the paradigm for “conscious-shocking”
21
behavior is Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), where the Supreme Court held the “forced
22
pumping of a suspect’s stomach [after the suspect swallowed drugs to destroy evidence] [was]
23
enough to offend due process as conduct ‘that shocks the conscience’ and violates the ‘decencies
24
of civilized conduct.’” Cty. of Sacramento, 523 U.S. at 846 (quoting Rochin, 342 U.S. at 209–10).
25
In Breithaupt v. Abram, the Supreme Court concluded that the taking of a sample of blood under
26
the protective eye of a physician did not shock the conscience because it was neither “brutal” nor
27
“offensive.” 352 U.S. 432, 435–38 (1957).
28
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10
Much like Breithaupt, escorting Plaintiff from the building is not conscious shocking.
1
2
Additionally, Plaintiff’s evidence that Defendants leaked the information to the press does not rise
3
to the “intentional and malicious” fabrication or dissemination of falsehoods discussed in Velez
4
and Robinson. First, Plaintiff’s evidence that Defendants leaked the information is circumstantial
5
(at best) and rests on a house of cards—he argues the proximity of the report to his termination
6
and the failure to investigate the leak show Defendants leaked the information. Opp. at 14. Yet,
7
Plaintiff cites no precedent requiring Defendants to investigate the leak. Second, Plaintiff cannot
8
show dissemination of falsehoods or intentional fabrication by Defendants; he takes issue with an
9
objectively true news article. There is no dispute that Plaintiff was put on leave and escorted from
the building and this is exactly what the article at issue reports. Avillo Decl., Ex. G (online
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
article). Third, even if Defendants arbitrarily chose to escort Plaintiff from the building without a
12
stated practice requiring them to do so, this at most shows negligence or carelessness. It does not
13
rise to the brutality or offensiveness of forced stomach-pumping, suppression of evidence, or
14
dissemination of falsehoods identified in the above cases. It is not enough that Plaintiff suffered
15
harm (economic, social, or psychological), he must show that Defendants possessed a malicious
16
motive or intended to injure him in some illegitimate way; escorting a terminated employee from
17
the building does not met this burden. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for
18
summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious/shocks the conscience cause of action.
19
IV.
CONCLUSION
20
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and
21
Plaintiff’s substantive due process claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. All pretrial deadlines
22
and hearing dates are VACATED and any pending motions are TERMINATED. The Clerk shall
23
close the file.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2019
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04378-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11
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?