Gonzalez v. Scaletta

• Decision Date: 15 September 2021
• Docket Number: 17-cv-7080
• Parties: JUAN GONZALEZ and STEFANY M. CARDENAS, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL G. SCALETTA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

JUAN GONZALEZ and STEFANY M. CARDENAS, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL G. SCALETTA, et al., Defendants.

No. 17-cv-7080

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

September 15, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Steven C. Seeger, United States District Judge.

The Chicago Police Department received a 911 call about a young woman who might harm herself. Officers promptly arrived at her home for a wellness check. They knocked, but no one came to the door. So they decided, in the heat of the moment, to go in.

As it turns out, the young woman, Plaintiff Stefany Cardenas wasn't home. But her stepfather, Plaintiff Juan Gonzalez was there. And he was more than a little surprised to see police officers standing in his home, with guns drawn. The police directed him to sit on the couch while they searched the place. They didn't find her, so they left.

Cardenas and Gonzalez later filed suit, bringing claims for illegal entry and unlawful search. They claim that the police had no legitimate justification for entering the home. They also allege that the search was unreasonable, in both scope and duration. According to them, the police looked in too many places, and stayed too long.

After extensive discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment. They invoked the emergency aid exception under the Fourth Amendment. They asserted qualified immunity, too. They also asserted judicial estoppel against Gonzalez because he failed to disclose this potential claim when he filed for bankruptcy more than a year after the incident.

For the reasons stated below, the motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part on the claims brought by Cardenas. The officers received a call about a young person who might be suicidal, so the emergency aid exception protected their decision to enter the home. Qualified immunity protected that decision, too. But there is a genuine issue of material fact about the reasonableness of the search, meaning where they looked and how long they took.

The Court grants summary judgment to the Defendants on all claims brought by Gonzalez. The doctrine of judicial estoppel protects the integrity of judicial proceedings, and penalizes litigants who play fast and loose with the courts. Here, the search took place in 2015. Gonzalez retained his current counsel in 2016 to investigate a potential claim. He then filed for bankruptcy in 2017, and represented under oath that he had no potential claims.

The Court finds that Gonzalez failed to disclose a potential claim, and did so intentionally. After telling the bankruptcy court that he had no claims of any value, he cannot tell a jury that he has a valuable claim.

Background

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff Stefany Cardenas was running late for work, and not for the best of reasons. See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 4 (Dckt. No. 125). She was arrested the night before, and she didn't leave the police station until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. See Cardenas Dep., at 43:2-4 (Dckt. No 124-12). She worked as a bank teller at Bank of America, and she was scheduled to start at 8:30 a.m. Id. at 43:13-14; see Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 2 (Dckt. No. 133). That's not a lot of time for sleep.

She called her boss, Maria Santiago, to let her know that she would be late. See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 4 (Dckt. No. 125). The record does not reveal when she called, or whether she predicted when she would arrive. But Cardenas told her boss about the arrest during that phone call. See Cardenas Dep., at 44:18-20 (Dckt. No. 124-12) (“That morning when I had called her to let her know I was going to be late, I let her know it was because I was - I had been arrested the night prior.”).

Cardenas didn't show up until 11:00 a.m., two and a half hours late. Id. at 43:15-17. When Cardenas arrived Santiago pulled her into an office to talk. See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 5 (Dckt. No. 125); see also Id. (“[P]laintiffs admit that Stefany's supervisor talked to her about being late to work.”).

Cardenas was “clearly upset” during the meeting, but she wasn't crying. Id. at ¶ 7; Cardenas Dep at 45:16-20 (Dckt. No. 124-12). She divulged that she had been arrested not once, but twice that week. See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 3, 6 (Dckt. No. 125). Her boss wasn't thrilled to hear it. In fact, Santiago told her that she potentially could lose her job. See Cardenas Dep., at 46:17-19 (“After these arrests, my manager informed me that I could potentially be terminated based on what they found; and there was going to be an investigation.”).

Santiago picked up on the fact that Cardenas was upset, so she asked if Cardenas wanted to talk with a counselor from the bank's employee assistance program. See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 7 (Dckt. No. 125). Cardenas called the counselor a short time later, and they spoke for 10 to 20 minutes. Id. at ¶ 8. She shared that she was “extremely upset about potentially losing her job and about the recent ending of a personal relationship.” Id.; see also Cardenas Dep., at 46:15-16 (Dckt. No. 124-12) (“They asked me how I'm doing, and I let them know that I'm just extremely overwhelmed about everything.”).

After she hung up, Cardenas reached out to Santiago again. She said that she “wasn't okay” and “needed to leave.” See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 9 (Dckt. No. 125). Santiago allowed her to leave work early. Id. Cardenas testified that the second conversation took place at some point between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. See Cardenas Dep., at 47:14-16 (Dckt. No. 124-12). She then left.^[1]

After Cardenas left work, Santiago called 911. See Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 10 (Dckt. No. 125). The parties disagree about what, exactly, Santiago told the 911 operator. But it is undisputed that the dispatcher then reached out to officers on the beat, and directed them to check on Cardenas.

Minutes after the 911 call, the Chicago Police Department dispatched two nearby officers, Gina Liberti and Greg Giuliani, to the home of Cardenas for a well-being check. Id. at ¶ 11; Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 10 (Dckt. No. 133). They were in the area, in separate marked squad cars. See Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 4.

The dispatcher called them on the police radio. Officer Giuliani testified about what he heard when he received the call:

Q: Okay. So if you look at - on page - it's marked as page 3. It's FCRL304. It's the fourth row down. It shows that the dispatcher put out a call for a well-being check at 1347, 10 hours?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you - do you recall hearing that on the radio?

[Counsel's objection to form]

A: I believe that call was dispatched to me.

Q: Okay. What - what were you told about why you needed to go over to this house?

[Counsel's objection to form]

A: In so many words, it was a check the well-being, a young female threatening to hurt herself, threatening to commit suicide.

* * *

Q: Okay. And do you recall any more detail about what the dispatcher told you about why a well-being check was needed?

A: That I - the only thing I can recall is that a young woman was threatening to hurt herself.

See Giuliani Dep., at 47:7-25, 50:5-9 (Dckt. No. 124-15). Officer Giuliani later repeated the point, testifying that he heard about a girl who might harm herself:

Q: And what - what was the matter of exigence, exactly?

A: That the description of the call given to me was that a young teenage girl was threatening to commit suicide, threatening to hurt herself.

Id. at 57:16-20.

Officer Giuliani testified that he first learned about the situation when he received the call on his radio:

Q: And did you receive this information over the radio?

A: Yes, I did. It was given to me as a radio assignment.

Id. at 48:9-12; see also Id. at 89:15-18 (“All I remember is over the air, you know, threatening to hurt herself, threatening to commit suicide. That's all I remember over the air.”).

Officer Liberti received a call from the dispatcher, too. (Or maybe the call. The parties don't explain if Officer Giuliani and Officer Liberti received the same call, or different calls. Again, they were in different squad cars. The Court does not know if the same call is broadcast to more than one car, all at once.). Officer Liberti testified that the dispatcher directed her to check on the well-being of a girl:

Q: Okay. So directing your attention to approximately two - excuse me - to - excuse me - 1:45 p.m. on October 1, 2015. At some point did you respond to a dispatch to go to 4819 North McVicker?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And what did you learn that led you to go to that location?

A: I responded to a call from our dispatcher. It was a call of a check well-being of a girl.

Q: Okay. What did you recall being told by the dispatcher?

A: That was it.

Q: Check the well-being of a girl?

A: Yes.

See Liberti Dep., at 57:18 - 58:6 (Dckt. No. 124-14); see also Id. at 13:13-25 (explaining radio calls from dispatchers).

She later added: “[T]he only information we got was check the well-being, that we're looking for a girl. That's it.” Id. at 75:22-24. “Just the only information we had was what our dispatcher told us.” Id. at 123:13-14. And in her view, a call to check on the wellbeing of someone could mean just about anything: “Could have been someone sick, injured, possibly threatening suicide. Someone needs help from the police. It's - it could be anything.” Id. at 66:20-22; id. at 90:18-20 (“We're looking for a young girl. We don't know what's going on. We don't know if she's down in the basement or is hurt or in distress.”).

In addition to the call on the radio, the 911...