Hardwick v. Cnty. of Orange

• Decision Date: 18 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 17-56292,17-56292
• Citation: 980 F.3d 733
• Parties: Preslie HARDWICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; Marcia Vreeken; Elaine Wilkins ; The Estate of Helen Dwojak, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

980 F.3d 733

Preslie HARDWICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.COUNTY OF ORANGE; Marcia Vreeken; Elaine Wilkins ; The Estate of Helen Dwojak, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56292

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2019 Pasadena, California

Filed November 18, 2020

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

In November 1999, the Orange County Social Services Agency ("SSA") filed a dependency petition on behalf of Preslie Hardwick and her sister, Kendall Hardwick, against their parents, Cary and Deanna Hardwick.¹ The juvenile dependency court assumed jurisdiction over the children, but the court permitted the children to remain in their mother's custody and to have supervised visitation with their father. During the course of the dependency proceedings, the social workers informed the court about missed visits and phone calls between the children and their father. Defendant Marcia Vreeken, a social worker, also represented to the court that Hardwick told the children their father was trying to take them away from her. In February 2000, the dependency court ordered that Preslie and Kendall be removed from Hardwick's custody.

In 2001, Hardwick filed an action in California superior court, asserting, among other claims, that County of Orange ("Orange County") social workers, including Vreeken, Vreeken's supervisor, Helen Dwojak, and another social worker, Elaine Wilkens, violated her constitutional right to familial association. Hardwick alleged that Vreeken and Dwojak fabricated evidence and made misrepresentations to the dependency court to obtain removal of her daughters from her custody. Hardwick's case proceeded to trial against the social workers and Orange County. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Hardwick against all defendants, except Wilkens.

Preslie filed this federal action in 2013, alleging that Vreeken, Dwojak, Wilkens, and Orange County violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association and her Fourth Amendment right against wrongful seizure. In a pretrial motion, she argued that her mother's prior state litigation conclusively determined that her removal from her mother's custody violated her right of familial association. She argued that Defendants Vreeken, Dwojak, and Orange County were precluded from relitigating the issue of liability.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the district court properly concluded that Preslie could not invoke collateral estoppel, which is also referred to as issue preclusion, because the rights at issue in Hardwick's state case and Preslie's federal case were not identical.² We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that where constitutional familial rights are at stake, there are identical companionship rights between a parent and child that could allow a plaintiff to invoke issue preclusion to bar relitigation of issues previously decided. In this case, however, Preslie cannot assert issue preclusion because Hardwick litigated more than just the overlapping companionship rights in her state court case and we cannot determine the basis for the jury's verdict.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In June 1999, in the midst of contentious custody proceedings, six-year old Preslie and her sister, nine-year old Kendall, were enrolled in therapy to assist with their adjustment to their parents’ divorce and their father's remarriage. During the course of this therapy, Kendall disclosed to the therapist allegations of sexual abuse by her father. The therapist reported the allegations to child protective services and, in November 1999, the SSA filed a dependency petition on behalf of Preslie and Kendall.³ The juvenile dependency court assumed jurisdiction over the children, but the children remained in Hardwick's custody and had supervised visitation with their father.

In December 1999, county social worker Rachel Davis filed a comprehensive report with the dependency court. The report recommended that the children remain in their mother's home under the supervision of the SSA and contingent upon Hardwick's full cooperation with a family case plan. The report also recommended weekly monitored visits between the children and their father. In January 2000, social worker Vreeken assumed responsibility for the Hardwick case.

At a court hearing in early February 2000, the dependency court learned of failed visits and phone calls between the children and their father. The court admonished Hardwick that if she did not comply with the visitation and phone call schedule, the court would likely remove the children from her care. After another missed visit and after Vreeken represented to the court that Hardwick, in Wilkens's presence, told her daughters that their father was trying to take them away from her, the court ordered the SSA to remove the children from Hardwick's care.⁴ Preslie contends that Vreeken and Dwojak made misrepresentations to the dependency court and repeatedly suppressed evidence throughout the dependency proceedings, despite their knowledge that Hardwick was a fit parent.

As ordered by the dependency court, Preslie and Kendall were promptly removed from Hardwick's custody. They were initially placed in a temporary children's shelter and then into a foster home. Eventually, in May 2000, Preslie and Kendall were placed in their father's custody while their mother was allowed supervised visitation. The dependency court ultimately terminated the dependency case and the custody dispute continued in family court.

B. Hardwick's State Court Case

In February 2001, Hardwick filed suit in California superior court against various defendants, including Vreeken, Dwojak, Wilkens, and Orange County. She sought damages and injunctive relief. Hardwick alleged, inter alia, that Vreeken and Dwojak's actions deprived her of her Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association with her children. She also alleged that Orange County failed to supervise and train its SSA social workers.

The state case proceeded to a jury trial. When instructing the jury on Hardwick's constitutional claim, among other matters, the court instructed the jury that Hardwick had to prove "[t]hat defendant's conduct violated [Hardwick's] right of familial association including her right to the care and custody of her two minor children, Kendall and Preslie; or violated her right to privacy."⁵ Through a series of special verdicts, the jury found that Vreeken and Dwojak "intentionally violate[d] the plaintiff's right to familial association or right to privacy." The jury also found that Orange County provided inadequate training or supervision to its employees and that its failure to do so was "the cause of the deprivation of [Hardwick's] right of familial association." The jury awarded Hardwick monetary damages. The court also entered a permanent injunction enjoining certain practices of SSA social workers when pursuing dependency proceedings. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, except for the trial court's award of injunctive relief.⁶

C. Preslie's Federal Action

Preslie, after obtaining the age of majority, filed this action in September 2013 against various defendants including Orange County, Vreeken, Dwojak, and Wilkens. Preslie alleged that the individual defendants violated her right to be free from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and her right to familial association under the Fourteenth Amendment when they caused her removal from her mother's custody without proper or just cause. More specifically, Preslie alleged that the defendant social workers violated her familial associational rights by "unlawfully removing her from the custody and care of her mother and continuing to detain her despite [their] knowledge that she was removed and detained based on Defendants’ lies, suppressions, and fabrications." She also brought a Monell claim against Orange County, alleging that the County established and/or followed policies that were the moving force behind the violations of her constitutional rights. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

In a pretrial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), Preslie sought summary adjudication of the defendants’ liability on her familial association and Monell claims. She argued that, in light of the verdicts and judgment in Hardwick's state case, her removal from her mother's custody violated her constitutional right of familial association and that any defenses Vreeken, Dwojak, and Orange County raised or could have "raised in prior litigation, have already been conclusively determined in prior litigation." Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asserting that the claims against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity, absolute immunity, or were without merit. They also argued that Preslie's Monell municipal liability claim against Orange County was meritless.

In April 2015, the district court granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment and summary adjudication motions. The court rejected Preslie's claim that Vreeken, Dwojak, and Orange County were "collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of liability" and denied her motion. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Orange County on Preslie's Monell claim but rejected the defendant social workers’ claim that they were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.⁷

The remaining claims were tried before a jury. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Vreeken and Dwojak. Preslie timely appealed. On appeal, Preslie only challenges the district court's ruling that she could not invoke the judgment in Hardwick's case to bar Vreeken, Dwojak, and Orange County from relitigating their liability on Preslie's familial association and Monell claims.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo "a district court's summary [adjudication]" and "whether issue preclusion is available." Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Stein , 906...