Lund v. Cowan, No. 20-55764 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging that defendant, a superior court judge, violated plaintiff's due process rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff, an heir to the Disney fortune, alleged that defendant violated his rights by appointing a guardian without notice or a hearing, and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by commenting (apparently with questionable factual basis) that plaintiff had Down syndrome.
The panel concluded that most of plaintiff's claims are now moot after defendant removed the guardian ad litem and relinquished this case to another judge. The panel also concluded that, while defendant's statement may have been inaccurate and inappropriate, any claim challenging it is barred by judicial immunity. Finally, the district court did not err in denying leave to amend where all of plaintiff's proposed amendments were futile.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Cowan violated plaintiff’s due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by appointing a guardian without notice or a hearing; and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by commenting (apparently with questionable factual basis) that plaintiff had Down syndrome. Plaintiff Bradford Lund is the grandson of Walt Disney. He has been embroiled in a long-running dispute with family members and trustees and has yet to claim a fortune estimated to be worth $200 million. In 2019, during settlement hearing, Judge Cowan remarked: “Do I want to give 200 million dollars, effectively, to someone who may suffer, on some level, from Down syndrome? The answer is no.” Judge Cowan rejected the proposed settlement and appointed a guardian ad litem over Lund without holding a hearing. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the basis that most of Lund’s claims were now moot because Judge Cowan removed the guardian ad litem and relinquished this case to another judge. And while Judge Cowan’s statement may have been inaccurate and inappropriate, any claim challenging it was barred by judicial immunity, which shields judges from liability for LUND V. COWAN 3 conduct or speech arising from their judicial duties. The panel further held that because judicial immunity barred the Americans with Disabilities Act claim against Judge Cowan, Lund’s claim against the Superior Court also failed. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Lund’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because all of Lund’s proposed amendments would have been futile.
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.