Huimin Song v. County of Santa Clara
705 F. App'x 492
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- County of Santa Clara sought to recoup alleged overpayments from two employees, Huimin Song and Andy Xie, by reducing future paychecks after providing written notice and meetings to dispute the amounts.
- Appellees sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming procedural due process violations and also asserted a state-law claim under Cal. Lab. Code § 221.
- The district court denied County’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded a jury verdict for Appellees on the § 1983 claim, but granted summary judgment to County on the § 221 claim and reduced attorneys’ fees.
- County appealed the denial of judgment as a matter of law; Appellees cross-appealed aspects of the summary judgment and fee reduction.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether County’s pre- and post-deprivation procedures satisfied due process and whether municipal (Monell) liability was established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County’s grievance procedures provided adequate pre-deprivation process | Song/Xie: notices and paycheck recoupment violated due process | County: written notice, meetings to dispute, and binding arbitration provided adequate process | Reversed — procedures were adequate; no due process violation |
| Whether County is liable under Monell for the alleged due process deprivation | Song/Xie: County policy or actions caused the deprivation | County: MOA and actions complied with policy; no final policymaker acted to create liability | Reversed — no municipal liability under Monell |
| Whether County violated Cal. Lab. Code § 221 by deducting wages | Song/Xie: improper deduction beyond stated amount constituted unlawful wage withholding | County: employees remained indebted for overpayment; MOA/collective bargaining exception applies under § 224 | Affirmed — summary judgment for County on § 221 claim |
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees after reversal of § 1983 verdict | Song/Xie: prevailing party entitled to fees | County: if verdict reversed, Appellees not prevailing party | Reversed — Appellees not entitled to fees after reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for renewed JMOL)
- Armstrong v. Meyers, 964 F.2d 948 (9th Cir.) (collective-bargaining grievance/arbitration can satisfy due process)
- Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859 (9th Cir.) (pre-deprivation due process requires notice, explanation, and opportunity to respond)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or final policymaker causation)
- Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837 (9th Cir.) (Monell causation and municipal liability principles)
- Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.) (state law governs who is a municipal policymaker)
- Teleflex Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 851 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.) (standards for JMOL and appellate review)
- Japanese Vill., LLC v. Fed. Transit Admin., 843 F.3d 445 (9th Cir.) (review standard for summary judgment)
- Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693 (9th Cir.) (fee entitlement hinges on prevailing party status in § 1983 cases)