Dees v. County of San Diego, No. 17-56621 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The county appealed the district court's post-verdict grant of judgment as a matter of law on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the alleged seizure of a minor, L, by a social worker. Plaintiffs, L and her mother, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the county's false letter allegedly impairing their right to familial association.
The Ninth Circuit held that this circuit's precedent requires that, to establish a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a minor being separated from his or her parents, plaintiffs must establish that an actual loss of custody occurred; the mere threat of separation or being subject to an investigation, without more, is insufficient. In this case, plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Furthermore, mother's allegation that her Fourteenth Amendment familial association right was violated as a result of L's 5-minute seizure at her school also failed to establish a claim given that she never actually lost control over L. The panel also held that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict in favor of the county on L's Fourth Amendment claim arising from the school seizure.
The panel reversed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' respective Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the seizure; reversed the district court's conditional grant of a new trial to mother on her seizure claim; affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the county employees on plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims involving the false letter; and affirmed the district court's conditional grant of a new trial on L's Fourth Amendment claim.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment in an action alleging that a County social worker violated plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during an investigation that involved interviewing minor plaintiff L.G. at her school. Plaintiffs, Sara Dees and her minor children L.G. and G.G. alleged that their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when a social worker sent a letter to the family court which falsely stated that a decision had been made to remove Sara’s children from her custody. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants violated L.G.’s Fourth Amendment rights when the social worker interviewed L.G. at her school for 5 minutes. DEES V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3 The panel held that this Circuit’s precedent requires that, to establish a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a minor being separated from his or her parents, plaintiffs must establish that an actual loss of custody occurred; the mere threat of separation or being subject to an investigation, without more, is insufficient. The panel held that plaintiffs’ allegations that their rights were violated when defendant sent an admittedly false letter to the family court failed to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the County on this claim. The panel held that Sara’s allegation that her Fourteenth Amendment familial association right was violated as a result of L.G.’s 5-minute seizure at her school also failed to establish a claim given that Sara never actually lost control over L.G. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s grant to Sara of judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial on that claim. The panel held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the County and granting the County all inferences therefrom, substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict in favor of the County on L.G’s Fourth Amendment claim arising from the school seizure. Thus, the panel determined that the district court inappropriately weighed the evidence when it concluded that L.G. was seized and did not (or could not) consent as a matter of law. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on L.G.’s Fourth Amendment claim. Although the panel reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to L.G. on her Fourth Amendment claim, the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial on that claim. The panel stated that this 4 DEES V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO result was not inherently contradictory and was driven by the standard of review—the district court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion instead of de novo review. The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial because while substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict, the clear weight of the evidence did not compel it. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Callahan concurred in the majority opinion affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of the County employees on the claims involving the false letter, reversing the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on L.G. and Sara’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding seizure, and reversing the conditional grant of a new trial to Sara on her seizure claim. However, Judge Callahan would vacate the district court’s conditional grant of a new trial to L.G. on the Fourth Amendment seizure claim. In Judge Callahan’s view, the record revealed substantial evidence that supported the jury’s determination, and the trial court had not indicated what evidence might undermine the jury’s verdict. DEES V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5
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.