960 F.3d 1145
9th Cir.2020Background
- In Feb 2013 a report that a father (Robert) took nude photos of his daughter Ka triggered an Agency investigation; a companion referral covered Sara Dees’s children L (age 9, cognitive disabilities) and G because they lived in the same home.
- County social worker Caitlynn McCann interviewed Ka, Robert, and then briefly (5 minutes) interviewed L at school without parental consent; L declined a school staff member in the room and did not stop the interview when told she could.
- The police closed their investigation and McCann later closed hers as "unfounded." McCann (via supervisors) also sent a family-court letter falsely stating L and G had been removed from Sara and placed with the noncustodial parent; the family court took no action and the children remained with Sara.
- Plaintiffs sued for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (seizure and familial-association interference); the district court granted summary judgment to County employees on the false-letter Fourteenth Amendment claims.
- A jury returned verdicts for the County on the remaining seizure claims; post-trial the district court set aside the jury verdict (JMOL) for plaintiffs and conditionally granted new trials. The County, Sara, and L appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the false family-court letter violated Sara and L's Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association | The false letter threatened custody and impaired familial rights; it was actionable even if family court had not yet acted | The letter caused no actual loss of custody or harm; mere investigation/threat is insufficient under Capp/Mann | Affirmed summary judgment for County employees on the false-letter Fourteenth Amendment claims; Capp and Mann bar the claim absent actual loss of custody |
| 2) Whether McCann’s 5-minute school interview of L constituted an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure | L (9, cognitive disabilities) was not free to leave and did not effectively consent; the social worker’s authority restrained her | Interview was consensual and brief, no police present, L agreed to speak and declined school staff presence; evidence supports jury verdict for County | Reversed district court JMOL for L (jury verdict for County was supported by substantial evidence) |
| 3) Whether Sara’s Fourteenth claim (interference with familial association by the school interview) is actionable | The seizure of L interfered with Sara’s custodial interests and familial association | No actual loss of custody; Capp requires actual loss or comparable deprivation | Reversed district court’s JMOL to Sara; Capp bars Fourteenth claim absent actual loss of custody |
| 4) Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial to L | Plaintiffs: clear weight of evidence supports that interview was an unreasonable seizure warranting new trial | County: jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence; new trial was an abuse of discretion | Affirmed conditional grant of a new trial for L (district court did not abuse its discretion even though JMOL was reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Capp v. County of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019) (investigation or threat alone without actual loss of custody does not state Fourteenth Amendment claim)
- Mann v. County of San Diego, 907 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018) (parental-notice/consent required for intrusive actions; actual deprivation of parental rights actionable)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (denial of procedural due process actionable even for nominal damages)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-hour school interview with police present deemed an unreasonable seizure for a child)
- Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2016) (Fourth Amendment protects children from unreasonable seizure by social workers)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (seizure occurs if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for appellate review of district court new-trial decisions; affirm if any ground for new trial is reasonable)