SCANLON V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 21-55999 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In a case involving the Department of Child and Family Services of the County of Los Angeles and individual social workers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling. The case arose from the removal of two minor children from their parents' custody following an anonymous report that the parents were using medical marijuana to treat one child's severe autism. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment.
The Circuit Court reversed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the parents' claim of judicial deception. The court concluded that the application submitted by the defendants in support of the warrant for removal contained misrepresentations and omissions and a reasonable trier of fact could find these misrepresentations material.
The Circuit Court also reversed the district court's summary judgment for defendants on the parents' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and their Monell claim, which argued that the county had an unofficial policy of encouraging social workers to omit exculpatory information from warrant applications.
However, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim concerning the social worker's interview of one child at her school, finding that the social worker was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no error in the district court's handling of a jury question during trial.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the claims of judicial deception, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Monell claim.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues.
Court Description: Social Worker Immunity The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment in favor of the Department of Child and Family Services of the County of Los Angeles and individual social workers in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising when social workers removed minor children K.X.
and G.X. from their parents’ custody following an anonymous report that the parents were using medical marijuana therapy to treat K.X.’s severe autism.
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants on the parents’ judicial deception claims. The panel concluded that defendants’ application filed in support of the warrant of removal contained misrepresentations and omissions of fact and that a reasonable trier of fact could find the misrepresentations material. Defendants were not entitled to qualified * The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. immunity because the right to be free from judicial deception was clearly established.
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings for defendants on the parents’ Fourth Amendment claim concerning social worker Lourdes Olarte’s interview of G.X. at her school. Lourdes was entitled to qualified immunity because she lacked fair notice that her conduct was unlawful.
The panel reversed the district court summary judgment for defendants on the parents’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the district court dismissed for the same reason as the judicial deception claim. Because the panel reversed the district court’s holding on judicial deception claim, it also reversed the district court’s holding on the emotional distress claim.
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants on the parents’ Monell claim because there was evidence in the record from which a jury could find that defendants maintain a practice of omitting exculpatory information from petitions for removal in a manner tantamount to an official “policy of inaction.” Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by re-reading its jury instructions, rather than providing additional instructions, in response to a jury question.
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.