Shavlik v. City of Snohomish
2:17-cv-00144
| W.D. Wash. | Apr 27, 2018Background
- Lori Shavlik was charged with arson after a 2010 fire; she was acquitted and then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state-law tort theories (defamation, outrage, malicious prosecution) against Snohomish County, the City of Snohomish, and Fire District No. 4.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants made defamatory public statements, destroyed or failed to preserve evidence, and fabricated evidence to support the prosecution.
- The City and Fire District moved for summary judgment; the Court granted summary judgment dismissing claims against those movants and Snohomish County, concluding plaintiffs’ allegations amounted to non-actionable negligence.
- Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1)/(2) to set aside the judgment as to Snohomish County, arguing the Court misapplied precedent, relied on mistaken facts, and that newly discovered evidence undermines the judgment.
- The Court evaluated (1) whether dismissal of a nonmoving defendant was appropriate under Ninth Circuit precedent, (2) whether evidence of prosecutorial animus differentiated the County, and (3) whether the proffered new evidence would likely change the case outcome.
- The Court denied relief, finding no misapplication of law, insufficient evidence of distinct animus by the County, and that the so-called newly discovered evidence would not alter the disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court misapplied Abagninin when it dismissed Snohomish County based on other defendants’ summary judgment motion | Shavlik: Abagninin inapplicable because County had appeared, unlike the nonmoving defendant in Abagninin | Defendants: Abagninin permits dismissal where claims/facts are indistinguishable and dismissal won’t shortcut adversarial development | Court: No misapplication; dismissal proper because allegations against County and City were indistinguishable |
| Whether dismissal of a nonmoving defendant would risk error by truncating adversarial development | Shavlik: Dismissal increases risk because County had appeared and could present distinct defenses | Defendants: No increased risk given shared facts and seamless prosecution arrangement | Court: No increased risk; shared factual allegations made dismissal appropriate |
| Whether evidence of prosecutorial animus tied to a 2009 incident differentiates the County | Shavlik: Prosecutor had animus from prior incident involving plaintiffs’ daughter, making County conduct distinct and actionable | Defendants: Evidence is insufficient; alleged statements are trivial and do not show intense animus | Court: Animus evidence (an email describing a continuance as "worthy of giggle fits") insufficient to establish the alleged level of animus |
| Whether newly discovered evidence (deposition excerpts) justifies relief under Rules 59(e)/60(b) | Shavlik: Deputy prosecutors’ deposition excerpts are newly discovered and would change disposition | Defendants: Depositions do not create a triable issue and one deposition predated summary judgment motion | Court: Evidence would not likely change the outcome; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2008) (nonmoving defendant can be dismissed on another defendant’s summary judgment where dismissal won’t increase risk of error)
- Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal of all claims against a defendant based on another defendant’s summary judgment)
- McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 59(e) relief appropriate for clear error or newly discovered evidence)
- Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1990) (newly discovered evidence warrants relief only if it likely would change the case disposition)
- U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b)(1) relief is granted sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances)