Jones v. Wang, No. 12-55995 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that defendant violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and committed various torts during her investigation into whether G.J. had been abused. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of her motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that plaintiffs' account of the evidence supports a claim that defendant seized G.J., and did so despite the absence of exigent circumstances; case law provided fair warning to defendant that detaining G.J. would violate the Constitution; and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to attempt to prove their version of the facts to a jury and summary judgment was not appropriate. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that defendant is not entitled as a matter of law to the reporter's privilege under section 11172(a) of the California Penal Code or discretionary immunity under section 820.2 of the California Government Code. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights / Qualified Immunity. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Dr. Claudia Wang’s motion for summary judgment based on her alleged qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought against Dr. Wang. The Jones family alleged that Dr. Wang violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and committed various torts during her investigation into whether G.J. had been abused. The panel held that, resolving all factual disputes in the Joneses’ favor, the alleged conduct of Dr. Wang could support a claim that Dr. Wang violated the Joneses’ clearly established constitutional rights. Namely, the panel held that the Joneses’ version of the facts supported a claim that Dr. Wang seized G.J. from his parents without exigent JONES V. WANG 3 circumstances. The panel held that because both parts of the qualified immunity test were satisfied, the Joneses were entitled to attempt to prove their version of the facts to a jury and summary judgment was not appropriate. The panel also held, concerning Dr. Wang’s asserted state statutory immunities to the Joneses’ state-law claims, that Dr. Wang was not entitled as a matter of law to the reporters’ privilege under Cal. Penal Code § 11172(a) or discretionary immunity under Cal. Government Code § 820.2. District Judge McNamee dissented, and he would find that Dr. Wang is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 19, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.