387 F. Supp. 3d 989
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Life Savers Concepts Association (a California-registered corporation) operated via membership agreements; members assigned claims and often granted Life Savers a 5% interest in their homes. Alleged fraud by manager Larry Brown prompted an FBI/DA investigation beginning in 2014.
- On July 11, 2017, FBI agents (including Agent Roahn Wynar) executed a search warrant at Life Savers' Sunnyvale office; four employees/individual plaintiffs (Lupita, Rito, Raquel, Esequiel) were present in adjoining living quarters and were detained, handcuffed briefly, and prevented from using phones; Raquel was interrogated during the search.
- Wynar later contacted Life Savers members (including telephone calls and appearing outside a meeting) warning them Life Savers was a scam and suggesting criminality by Brown.
- Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting Bivens claims (First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments) against Wynar individually and in his official capacity and against unnamed Doe defendants; the FBI was removed as a defendant in the FAC.
- The district court considered Wynar’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), addressing Bivens availability, standing, pleading adequacy, and qualified immunity; the court dismissed several claims (some with prejudice, some with leave to amend) and left only Raquel’s Fourth Amendment Bivens claim surviving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens relief is available against Wynar in his official capacity | Life Savers sued Wynar in both capacities (drafting oversight) | Official-capacity Bivens claims are not permitted; remedy only against individuals | Dismissed with prejudice (official-capacity claims not allowed) |
| Whether a Fourteenth Amendment Bivens claim lies against a federal agent | Plaintiffs alleged Fourteenth Amendment deprivation | Fourteenth Amendment applies to states, not federal actors | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Life Savers (a corporation) can assert Bivens claims on behalf of employees under First, Fourth, Fifth Amendments | Life Savers asserted corporate Bivens claims for harms to employees/members | Expanding Bivens to corporations is a new context with special factors counseling hesitation and alternative remedies exist | Dismissed with prejudice (Life Savers’ Counts 1 & 2) |
| Whether Individual Plaintiffs stated First Amendment Bivens claims based on Wynar’s conduct at a meeting | Plaintiffs alleged Wynar intimidated members outside a meeting, violating assembly rights | Wynar argued Bivens may not extend and Plaintiffs lack standing and factual detail | Dismissed with leave to amend (no individual plaintiff alleged attendance; pleading deficient) |
| Whether Individual Plaintiffs stated Fifth Amendment claims (due process/equal protection/self-incrimination) | Plaintiffs alleged Miranda failure and false arrest during the raid | Defendants argued no cognizable Fifth Amendment deprivation alleged | Dismissed without prejudice (pleading deficient); leave to amend granted |
| Whether Individual Plaintiffs (esp. Raquel) stated Fourth Amendment Bivens claims and whether Wynar is entitled to qualified immunity | Plaintiffs alleged excessive force, detention, and interrogation (Raquel detained and interrogated) | Wynar asserted qualified immunity; argued conduct lawful during search/raid | Raquel’s Fourth Amendment claim survives (denied dismissal re: qualified immunity); claims by Lupita, Rito, Esequiel dismissed with leave to amend (insufficient particularity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens-style remedy for certain Fifth Amendment gender-discrimination claims)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference toward prisoners)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (framework: courts should not extend Bivens to new contexts; special factors inquiry)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (limits on Bivens where alternative remedial structures exist)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (temporary handcuffing/detention during raids can be reasonable and not an arrest)
- Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003) (police interrogations of business employees during a search can violate Fourth Amendment)