Tim Gomes v. Santa Clara County, 20-16799

Newborn H.G. was hospitalized; staff reported to DFCS that parents Tim and Catherine Gomes repeatedly mishandled and neglected the infant (e.g., Tim picked H.G. up by the neck and dangled her, parents left the child unswaddled causing low body temperature, failed to feed/change diapers).
Hospital staff and DFCS social worker Katherine DiPaulo corroborated the reports and told Beck, a supervisory DFCS social worker, that H.G. would be discharged to the parents imminently.
Beck removed H.G. from the parents without a warrant, believing the child faced imminent risk before a warrant could be obtained.
Gomeses sued under the Fourteenth Amendment; the district court granted summary judgment for Santa Clara County and Beck. On appeal the Gomeses challenged only the Fourteenth Amendment claims against the County and Beck.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) Beck entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official could conclude exigent circumstances existed; (2) Monell claims against the County were waived for failure to raise them in the opening brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless removal violated the Fourteenth Amendment (exigency)	Gomes: removal unlawful; no exigent circumstances justified bypassing a warrant	Beck: hospital reports and imminent discharge created reasonable belief of immediate risk	Affirmed for Beck on qualified immunity grounds — facts supported reasonable belief of imminent harm; court did not resolve constitutional violation prong
Qualified immunity — was the right clearly established?	Gomes: existing precedents put Beck on notice that removal was unconstitutional	Beck: cited precedents are distinguishable and did not give fair warning	Held not clearly established; qualified immunity applies
Monell municipal liability for inadequate training/policy	Gomes: County liable for insufficient training/policies	County: Gomeses failed to properly raise or develop Monell arguments on appeal	Monell claims waived; summary judgment for County affirmed
Timeliness and corroboration of abuse reports as exigency evidence	Gomes: prior cases show removal unlawful where facts were less urgent	Beck: contrasts prior cases that involved delays or less immediate danger	Court found this case materially different and supported a reasonable exigency determination

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity standard; two-prong inquiry requiring clearly established law)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (clarifies deference to qualified immunity analysis)
Kirkpatrick v. Cnty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784 (parent-child relation protection; warrant or exigency required for removals)
Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (exigency requires reasonable inference of imminent danger; distinguishes delayed responses)
Jessop v. Cty. of Fresno, 936 F.3d 937 (clearly established prong; fair warning requirement)
O'Doan v. Sanford, 991 F.3d 1027 (summary judgment standard applying Ninth Circuit precedent in plaintiffs' favor)
Torres v. Cnty. of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119 (standard of review for summary judgment in civil rights suits)
Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134 (qualified immunity and summary judgment principles)
Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101 (distinguished—delayed response undermined exigency)
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (distinguished—relied on uncorroborated, extraordinary allegations)
Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (distinguished—reliance on stale allegations)