Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Tsao, an advantage gambler, was trespassed from Desert Palace properties multiple times under different names.
- Caesars Palace security and LVMPD operated under a SILA program allowing certain guards to issue citations for misdemeanor trespassing.
- Desert Palace treated invitations and promotions as potential invitations to gamble, potentially rescinding prior trespass warnings.
- Tsao was arrested after security identified her through various name inconsistencies and matching records, and Crumrine sought to identify her during interrogation.
- District Court granted summary judgment to Crumrine and Desert Palace on §1983 claims and some state-law claims, and awarded costs and fees; Tsao appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed some claims, vacated others, remanded state-law issues, and vacated attorney’s fees awards; Monell liability and state-action questions were pivotal to the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell applies to private entities under §1983? | Tsao argues Desert Palace liable under Monell as a state actor. | Desert Palace argues Monell may apply to private entities via state-action theory. | Monell applies to private entities; Desert Palace can be liable as a state actor. |
| Desert Palace’s state-action via SILA program constitutes joint action? | Desert Palace’s SILA authority and cooperation with LVMPD created state action. | No sufficient joint action; policies were ordinary private security functions. | Desert Palace is a state actor under joint-action theory due to SILA program and interdependence with LVMPD. |
| Probable cause for Tsao’s trespass arrest? | Promotional offers potentially invited her back, challenging trespass basis. | Promotional offers did not negate prior trespass warnings; probable cause supported arrest. | Court held no need to reach state-law invitation questions; probable cause for trespass arrest supported by other evidence, maintaining Desert Palace’s position. |
| Probable cause for Crumrine’s arrest for obstructing investigation? | Tsao delayed investigation by giving misleading names; argues no probable cause. | Crumrine had probable cause based on obfuscated identity and delaying information. | Crumrine had probable cause to believe Tsao obstructed the investigation; §1983 claim affirmed for Crumrine. |
| Remand/reexamination of state-law claims? | State-law issues should be considered with full factual and legal development. | Federal claims resolved; state-law claims should be reconsidered in light of Monell decision. | Remand to reconsider district court’s jurisdiction over state-law claims and related rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal/organization liability requires policy or custom)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (limits on detentions and police power in minor offenses)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (directing officials to violate rights can impose liability)
- Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002) (direct/omission policy liability framework; state actor analysis)
- Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (S. Ct. 2011) (costs/omission policies and proof of causation in Monell cases)