Salameh v. City and County of Honolulu
1:12-cv-00073
D. Haw.Mar 31, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Salameh sues City and Hokama for injuries from a January 15, 2010 HPD arrest following a harassment investigation.
- Officers allegedly blocked access to the apartment; Hokama leg-swept Salameh at the top of stairs, causing a fall and a fractured knee.
- Salameh was handcuffed, transported to Queen’s Medical Center, and treated for injuries after the incident.
- Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action including §1983, assault and battery, negligence, IIED, NIED, respondeat superior, and punitive damages against Hokama.
- City moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of cognizable §1983 claim, inadequate allegations of malice and duty, and lack of viable Doe defendants; Salameh seeks leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1983 municipal liability sufficiency | Salameh alleges City policy/custom or failure to train caused the violation. | City alleges no policy, custom, or deliberate indifference; allegations are conclusory. | Count I dismissed without prejudice; amendment possible. |
| Respondeat superior and malice for assault/battery | City liable for Hokama's acts within scope of employment. | Plaintiff fails to show intent, unreasonable conduct, or malice overriding privilege. | Count II dismissed without prejudice; malice deficiency noted. |
| Negligent training/supervision claim viability | City failed in training/supervision, foreseeability argument raised. | Plaintiff did not allege outside-scope acts or City notice; allegations are legal conclusions. | Count III dismissed without prejudice; amendment allowed. |
| IIED viability | Conduct was outrageous; intentional or reckless | Insufficient facts to show outrageous conduct or malice overcoming privilege. | Count IV dismissed without prejudice. |
| NIED viability | Negligent conduct caused severe emotional distress; duty/breach alleged | NIED requires duty/breach with physical injury or mental illness; facts inadequate. | Count V dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes municipal §1983 liability via policy/custom)
- Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008) (monetary liability requires policy or practice; failure to train may matter)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference in training creates liability)
- Towse v. State of Hawaii, 647 P.2d 696 (Haw. 1982) (nonjudicial official privilege; malice removes privilege)
- Medeiros v. Kondo, 522 P.2d 1269 (Haw. 1974) (premised on balancing immunity and access to remedy)
- Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007) (defines malice in ordinary sense for improper purposes)
- Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 112 Haw. 3, 143 P.3d 1205 (2006) (negligent supervision requires showing outside-scope conduct and foreseeability)
- Cho v. Hawaii, 115 Haw. 373, 168 P.3d 17 (2007) (negligence elements; duty and breach required)
- Wong–Leong v. Hawaiian Indep. Refinery, Inc., 879 P.2d 538 (Haw. 1994) (mutual exclusivity of negligent supervision and respondeat superior)