Gregoire v. Cal. Highway Patrol, CASE NO. 14CV1749-GPC(DHB)
| Decision Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 14CV1749-GPC(DHB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | JACOB GREGOIRE, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, an agency of the State of California; SERGIO FLORES; and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants. |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Dkt. No. 25.]
Before the Court is Defendants California Highway Patrol and Sergio Flores' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 25.) An opposition was filed on January 20, 2016. (Dkt. No. 35.) A reply was filed on February 2, 2016. (Dkt. No. 42.) After a review of the briefs, supporting documentation, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On June 12, 2014, Plaintiff Jacob Gregoire, a Fire Engineer/ Emergency Medical Technician ("EMT") for the Chula Vista Fire Department filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Defendant Sergio Flores, a California Highway Patrol ("CHP") officer, and Defendant California Highway Patrol in San Diego Superior Court for unreasonable seizure,1 excessive force and state law causes of action for violation of California Civil Code ("Civil Code") section 52.1, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Compl.) The case was removed to this Court on July 25, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants bring a motion for summary judgment on all causes of action in the complaint. (Dkt. No. 25.)
The undisputed facts are the following. During the evening of February 4, 2014, CHP Officers Eliazar Colunga ("Colunga") and Sergio Flores ("Flores") were on duty for C-watch (5:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.). (Dkt. No. 35-1, SSUF2 Nos. 1, 4.) Colunga has been a CHP patrol officer for about 17 years and Flores has been a CHP patrol officer since July 1994. (Id., SSUF Nos. 3, 6.)
Just before 9:30 p.m., Officer Colunga responded to a radio call about an overturned vehicle in the area of Interstate 805 ("I-805") and Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista. (Id., SSUF No. 7.) The collision occurred in the northbound lanes of the I-805, and the vehicle to which Colunga was responding came to rest in a wide construction area between cement k-rail walls that separated the northbound and southbound lanes. (Id., SSUF No. 8.) Colunga saw no other on-duty emergency responders at the scene when he arrived and parked his patrol car south of the collision in the center construction area, where the k-rails on the southbound side ended and the center construction area was accessible. (Id., SSUF No. 9.)
Colunga approached the overturned vehicle and made contact with two civilians, James Hutton ("Hutton") and Autumn Mitchell ("Mitchell") who had come upon the accident scene after the accident but before Colunga arrived. (Id., SSUF No. 11.)Hutton was an off-duty EMT. (Id.) Officer Colunga saw that both of the occupants of the rollover vehicle were conscious, with one lying on the ground and the other standing. (Id., SSUF No. 12.) During the evening, Officer Colunga was able to communicate with the two occupants. (Id., SSUF No. 13.) Seeing that the off-duty EMT was holding the head of the person on the ground in a C-spine position and was without equipment, Officer Colunga went to his vehicle to retrieve a first aid bag that would have a C-spine collar. (Id., SUF No.14.)
On the way to his patrol car, Officer Colunga saw an ambulance from American Medical Response ("AMR") arrive and park just south of Officer Colunga's patrol car.3 (Id., SSUF No. 15.) The ambulance had its emergency lights activated. (Id.) When Colunga saw the ambulance crew walk over to the rolled over vehicle with their gear, Officer Colunga determined that it was not necessary for him to retrieve a first aid bag. (Id., SSUF No. 16.) Colunga saw three people from the AMR ambulance, and, at the time, he believed all three were paramedics. (Id., SSUF No. 17.) Later, he learned that two of them were paramedics and one was an EMT. (Id.)
Soon after the ambulance arrived, fire trucks began arriving. (Id., SSUF No. 20.) Officer Colunga saw Chula Vista Engine 52 arrive and park in the number 1 lane on the southbound side. (Id.) Firefighter/EMT Gregoire drove Engine 52 with Captain David Albright and Firefighter/EMT Joshua Rees on board. (Dkt. No. 35-5, Rees Decl. ¶ 3.) Two other fire trucks arrived within short succession and parked behind Engine 52, blocking the number 1 and 2 lanes. (Dkt. No. 35-1, SSUF No. 21.) Then a fourth fire truck also came to the scene. (Id.) Colunga talked to crew members from two fire trucks, explained that they were not needed, should leave and return to their stations. (Dkt. No. 25-4, Colunga Decl. ¶ 10.) Two fire trucks left the scene within a fewminutes. (Id.) Colunga then asked members of the other two fire crews to move their trucks into the center median. (Id.) Despite his requests to the remaining two Chula Vista Fire crews to move their trucks, the trucks were not moved. (Id. ¶ 12.) Later, Officer Colunga noticed that the two fire trucks were not moved, so he went back to speak to the fire crews again and requested that they move the fire trucks. (Id. ¶ 12.) It was at this point that Colunga saw Officer Flores walk up to where he was standing with the fire fighters, close enough so that Flores could have overheard the conversation. (Dkt. No. 35-1, SSUF No. 43.)
At around 9:30 p.m., Defendant Officer Flores heard radio traffic regarding the collision. (Id., SSUF No. 49.) After clearing a traffic stop in Mission Valley, Flores began driving southbound on the I-805 to respond to the accident scene. (Id., SSUF No. 50.) Upon approaching the scene, Flores noticed that traffic was backing up so he began a traffic break to bring traffic approaching the scene in slowly. (Id., SSUF No. 52.) He came upon a fire truck that was parked mostly in the number 1 lane and partially into the number 2 lane. (Id., SSUF No. 53.) Where the fire truck was stopped, there was a cement k-rail abutting the number 1 lane on the east side of the southbound lanes. (Id., SSUF No. 54.) Flores stopped his patrol car about 100 feet behind the fire truck and started to lay a flare pattern on the road proceeding from the rear of his patrol vehicle in a diagonal pattern moving southbound toward the number 2 lane. (Id., SSUF No. 56.)
Flores saw fire personnel, paramedics, and at least one of the people who had been involved in the collision near the vehicle in this center area. (Id., SSUF No. 59.) Flores determined that the collision had occurred on the northbound side and that the vehicle had come to rest in the construction area. (Id., SSUF No. 60.) Officer Flores saw paramedics providing medical care to the vehicle occupants. (Id., SSUF No. 61.) Soon after completing his flare pattern, Officer Flores saw Officer Colunga speaking to a group of firefighters. (Id., SSUF No. 62.) Officer Flores heard Officer Colunga asking the group why they had not yet moved their fire engine and told them severaltimes that they needed to move their fire engine. (Id., SSUF Nos. 63, 64.)
In his efforts to get the fire trucks moved, Officer Flores called out to the group of fire fighters and asked who was driving the truck. (Id., SSUF No. 80.) Plaintiff responded and stated he was driving the truck. (Id., SSUF No. 81.) The facts are disputed as the conversation between Gregoire and Officer Flores which will be discussed below. (Id., SSUF Nos. 82-89.)
After the conversation, Flores directed Gregoire to step over a k-rail, Gregoire stepped over the k-rail, and Officer Flores placed him under arrest and placed handcuffs on Gregoire's wrists and walked him back to Flores' patrol car. (Id., SSUF Nos. 90, 92, 101.) Plaintiff remained in custody for approximately 30 minutes before being released. (Id., SSUF No. 116.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 empowers the Court to enter summary judgment on factually unsupported claims or defenses, and thereby "secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 327 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is material when it affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party can satisfy this burden by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element of his or her claim on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322-23. If the moving party fails to bear the initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider thenonmoving party's evidence. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
Once the moving party has satisfied this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing of an element of its case, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 325. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In making this determination, the court m...
To continue reading
Request your trial