980 F.3d 733
9th Cir.2020Background
- In Nov. 1999 Orange County SSA filed a juvenile dependency petition after Kendall (sister) alleged sexual abuse by the father; children initially remained with mother Hardwick under supervision.
- Social workers (Vreeken, Dwojak, Wilkens) reported missed visits and represented Hardwick told the children the father was trying to take them; court removed the girls from Hardwick in Feb. 2000 and placed them eventually with their father.
- Hardwick sued in California state court (2001) claiming deprivation of familial association and related claims; a jury returned special verdicts finding Vreeken and Dwojak intentionally violated Hardwick’s right of familial association or right of privacy; County found liable for inadequate training/supervision; damages and some injunctive relief followed.
- Preslie (the child) sued in federal court (2013) under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Monell against Orange County, seeking to preclude relitigation of liability by invoking issue preclusion based on Hardwick’s state-court judgment.
- The district court denied Preslie’s request for issue preclusion and granted County summary judgment on Monell; after trial a jury returned verdicts for the individual social workers; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding issue preclusion inapplicable because the state verdicts were ambiguous and the issues were not identical.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Preslie can use issue preclusion to bar individual social workers from relitigating liability for violating her familial-association rights | Hardwick’s state-court victory against the same defendants necessarily adjudicated the overlapping parent-child companionship right, so Preslie is precluded from relitigation | The state special verdicts were ambiguous (familial association or privacy); issues in the state and federal suits are not identical | No; issue preclusion unavailable because the state verdicts did not necessarily decide the same familial-association issue for Preslie |
| Whether Preslie can preclude Orange County from relitigating Monell liability based on the state verdict | County’s failure-to-train finding in Hardwick’s case should bind County in Preslie’s Monell claim | The precise Monell question for Preslie was not raised and necessarily decided in the state proceeding; issues differ | No; issue preclusion does not bar County from litigating Monell liability |
Key Cases Cited
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378 (Cal. 2015) (California law framing and elements of issue preclusion)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223 (Cal. 1990) (party asserting issue preclusion bears burden; identical-issue principle)
- Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268 (Ct. App. 2008) (issue preclusion requires that the precise question was necessarily decided)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (framework for familial-association liberty interest and its protection)
- Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2018) (same legal standard applies to child removal claims under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an unconstitutional policy or custom)