Duncan v. Grant
2:12-cv-00219
| E.D. Wash. | Oct 1, 2013Background
- On Feb. 10, 2010 Liberty Lake officers responded to competing 911 reports after an altercation between repossessor Victor Grant and Franklin Duncan; both parties reported the other had assaulted them and Grant reported Duncan took keys from his tow truck.
- Officers obtained written statements from witnesses (Grant, his partner Brandie Claussen, and Duncan’s adult children) and observed marks consistent with Grant/Claussen’s accounts; officers believed they had probable cause to arrest Duncan for vehicular prowling and assault.
- During arrest Duncan claims officers used force (wrist/hand pressure, a TASER) causing increased pain to an already fractured left ring finger and new right wrist pain; officers describe physical resistance and use of force to subdue him.
- Procedurally, Plaintiffs sued Grant, the City of Liberty Lake, and Officer Clint Gibson on multiple tort and civil-rights theories; several §1983 and emotional‑distress claims were voluntarily dismissed earlier.
- Movants: Grant moved to dismiss negligent misrepresentation (arguing anti‑SLAPP immunity). City and Gibson moved for partial summary judgment on false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligent supervision, and causation; they also moved to strike portions of the Duncan declarations.
- Court accepted defendants’ undisputed facts (plaintiffs failed to file required statement of disputed facts), granted Grant’s motion re negligent misrepresentation, granted summary judgment in part and denied in part as to City and Gibson, and denied the motion to strike as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent misrepresentation (Grant) | Grant’s statements to police were false and caused harm; Grant liable for negligent misrepresentation | Grant is immune under Washington’s anti‑SLAPP statute for communications to law enforcement about matters of concern to the agency | Granted: claim dismissed; statements to police fall within RCW § 4.24.510 immunity |
| False arrest / false imprisonment (City & Gibson) | Arrest lacked probable cause; officers wrongly arrested and detained Duncan | Officers had probable cause based on reports/observations (assault, vehicle prowling), which is a complete defense | Granted: claims dismissed because undisputed record supports probable cause for arrest |
| Malicious prosecution (City & Gibson) | Prosecution was malicious and lacked probable cause; police failed to pursue charges against Grant | Officers had probable cause and provided full fair disclosure to prosecutor; probable cause is a defense to malicious prosecution | Granted: claim dismissed for lack of support; officers had grounds for arrest/prosecution |
| Negligent supervision & causation of injuries | City failed to supervise Gibson; officers’ conduct caused aggravation of finger fracture and wrist injury | Negligent supervision requires employee acting outside scope; plaintiffs lack medical proof of causation | Negligent supervision: Granted (plaintiffs failed to plead elements; officer acted within scope). Causation/injury: Denied — Duncan’s testimony and some medical record support triable issues on injury causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (pleading and summary‑judgment standards; courts may disregard contradicted or conclusory allegations)
- Rowe v. Lowe, 173 Wash. App. 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (Washington anti‑SLAPP immunity applies to communications to law enforcement about matters within their responsibility)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden‑shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact; scintilla rule)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party except where record conclusively contradicts)
- Orr v. Bank of America, N.T. & S.A., 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (only admissible evidence considered on summary judgment)
- McBride v. Walla Walla County, 95 Wash. App. 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (probable cause is complete defense to false arrest/imprisonment)
- Rodriguez v. City of Moses Lake, 158 Wash. App. 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (elements and standards for malicious prosecution and probable cause)
- Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wash.2d 485 (Wash. 1941) (prima facie want of probable cause established by dismissal; defendant may rebut)