Safar v. Tingle, 178 F. Supp. 3d 338

Background

Plaintiffs Fadwa Safar and Jan Eshow (Virginia residents, naturalization applicants) were arrested after Costco reported they committed refund fraud related to a flooring purchase/return transaction. Costco had sales records, video, and employee statements that, according to plaintiffs, showed employees instructed Eshow’s actions.
Officer Stephanie Rodriguez investigated, viewed parts of the store video, did not review sales/credit records or question the assisting employees, and swore an affidavit that led a magistrate to issue arrest warrants for both plaintiffs on October 17, 2012.
In June–July 2013 Eshow was arrested on the outstanding warrant; his prosecution was dismissed (nolle prosequi) after a Costco representative told the court no fraud occurred. Rodriguez’s file indicated the same basis supported both warrants.
In December 2013 Safar went to obtain an immigration police clearance and was arrested on the still-active 2012 warrant, detained in Maryland over Christmas (including invasive search and separation from her breastfeeding infant); her case was dismissed the next day.
Plaintiffs sued Costco (malicious prosecution, negligence), Officer Rodriguez (§ 1983, malicious prosecution, gross negligence), and Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Lisa Tingle (§ 1983, gross negligence). Court disposed of motions to dismiss: only the malicious-prosecution claim against Costco survived; all other claims were dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Costco can be liable for malicious prosecution	Costco instigated prosecution by reporting fraud despite having exculpatory indicia and thus lacked probable cause and acted with malice	Costco argues plaintiffs fail to allege lack of probable cause or that Costco instituted the prosecution	Court: Denied Costco's motion; complaint plausibly alleges Costco initiated proceedings, lacked probable cause, and malice may be inferred
Whether Costco owed plaintiffs a duty for negligence claim	Costco had duty to disclose exculpatory facts and correct erroneous report	Costco: no legal duty to alleged victims; negligence claim is a disguised malicious-prosecution claim	Court: Granted Costco's motion; no cognizable negligence cause independent of malicious prosecution
Whether Officer Rodriguez is liable under § 1983 / state law for failing to withdraw warrants after issuance	Plaintiffs: Rodriguez learned allegations were erroneous yet failed to act to withdraw warrants, causing unlawful seizures	Rodriguez: Fourth Amendment governs false-arrest/seizure claims; after magistrate issued warrant, officer not liable for failure to terminate; qualified immunity applies	Court: Dismissed federal and state claims against Rodriguez; allegations insufficient to show lack of probable cause at initiation or to overcome qualified immunity
Whether Prosecutor Tingle is immune for failing to withdraw Safar's warrant after learning it was erroneous	Plaintiffs: Tingle learned at Eshow hearing that warrants rested on misinformation and failed to act to withdraw Safar's warrant, causing detention and harm	Tingle: absolute prosecutorial immunity (or at least qualified immunity) applies to decisions about warrants and motions to dismiss; suits would chill prosecutorial functions	Court: Dismissed claims against Tingle; applied functional approach and held decision whether to move to withdraw a warrant is prosecutorial and entitled to absolute immunity

Key Cases Cited

O'Connor v. Tice, 281 Va. 1 (Va. 2011) (elements of malicious prosecution under Virginia law)
Reilly v. Shepherd, 273 Va. 728 (Va. 2007) (malicious prosecution disfavored; stringent requirements)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for initiating prosecutions)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1991) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (no absolute immunity for pre-probable-cause investigative acts)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (Fourth Amendment governs unreasonable seizure claims, not substantive due process)
Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2012) (§ 1983 malicious-prosecution elements incorporate Fourth Amendment seizure principles)
Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 1996) (officer not liable for failing to terminate prosecution after magistrate found probable cause)
Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 1996) (similar holding on officer's post-warrant omissions)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (Franks doctrine and when warrants must be voided for falsehoods/reckless omissions)