Sharron Lefay v. William Lefay, 673 F. App'x 722

Sharron LeFay was placed on a 72-hour mental-health hold under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150 after her husband, William, called police saying she had “jumped on him” and was delusional and declining mentally.
Officer Darryll Van Deursen was dispatched, was told of an earlier disturbance, and learned from William that Sharron accused him of stealing her purse and poisoning her food.
Officer Van Deursen interviewed Sharron, who reported not eating for three days, could not recall when she last drank, said she was treated for depression and chronic pain, and expressed concerns about William stealing her purse.
Officer Van Deursen observed physical signs: trouble walking, appearing malnourished and dehydrated, and wearing unclean clothes — facts the court treated as specific and articulable.
Procedurally, Sharron sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an unlawful seizure (Fourth Amendment). The district court granted summary judgment for the officer; defendants (city/officers) cross-appealed an award of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees imposed as a Rule 37 discovery sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Van Deursen had probable cause under § 5150 to detain Sharron	LeFay argued the facts did not establish probable cause that she was mentally disordered and dangerous	Officer argued his observations and William’s report gave specific, articulable facts supporting a § 5150 hold	Court held there was probable cause; affirmed summary judgment for the officer
Whether the district court abused its discretion awarding plaintiffs attorney’s fees as a Rule 37 sanction	LeFay argued the fee award was improper or procedurally defective	Defendants argued sanctions were unwarranted or the award improper	Court held the district court did not abuse discretion: non-disclosure was found harmless with conditions and fees were reasonable; procedural requirements met
Whether the cross-appeal was frivolous justifying sanctions against LeFay	LeFay contended cross-appeal lacked merit	Defendants sought sanctions for a frivolous appeal	Court rejected sanctions: appeal lacked obvious merit but was not wholly frivolous

Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard for § 5150 holds)
People v. Triplett, 192 Cal. Rptr. 537 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (definition of facts supporting mental-disorder/danger inference)
Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 37(c)(1) standard; exceptions for substantially justified or harmless nondisclosure)
Halaco Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376 (9th Cir. 1988) (appellate review for abuse of discretion in sanctions)
Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc., 892 F.2d 58 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard for awarding sanctions on appeal)
McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116 (9th Cir. 1981) (standard for frivolous-appeal sanctions)

AFFIRMED.