Julian v. Mission Cmty. Hosp.

Decision Date02 May 2017
Docket NumberB263563
Citation218 Cal.Rptr.3d 38,11 Cal.App.5th 360
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties Katia JULIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Law Office of Gary Brown and Gary Brown, Pasadena, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, E. Todd Chayet ; Reback, McAndrews, Kjar, Warford & Stockalper, Thomas F. McAndrews, Manhattan Beach, and Tracy D. Hughes, San Bernardino, for Defendants and Respondents Mission Community Hospital and Deanco Healthcare, LLC.

Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols, David J. O'Keefe, Thomas M. O'Neil, Michael Vincent Ruocco and Gary Dennis, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Abdul Shirazi, M.D.

Lynberg & Watkins, Gary A. Bacio and Christopher P. Bates, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles Unified School Police, Libier Valencia, Yvonne Miranda, Elizabeth Lara, Jose Cardenas, and Robert Taylor.

SEGAL, J.

INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of a series of events that began at a Los Angeles middle school, where Katia Julian taught mathematics, and ended at Mission Community Hospital, where Julian was involuntarily detained for mental health evaluation and treatment. After her release, Julian sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the Los Angeles Unified School Police (LAUSP), and five individual police officers (collectively, the school defendants) who detained her and helped transport her to the hospital. She alleged the school defendants did not have probable cause under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 to detain her.1 Julian also sued the hospital (Mission Community Hospital), its owner (Deanco Healthcare, LLC), and the physician who treated her there (Dr. Abdul Shirazi) (collectively, the hospital defendants), alleging they lacked probable cause to continue to detain her and to admit her to the hospital where she spent one night before she was released the next day.

Julian's operative third amended complaint sought monetary damages for various alleged violations of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (section 5000 et seq.) (the Act) and of her civil rights under the federal and state constitutions. The trial court sustained the hospital defendants' demurrers to Julian's third amended complaint and granted the school defendants' motion for summary judgment.

We conclude there is no private right of action for the violations of the Act Julian alleged. We also conclude the school district and the school police are immune from liability under Title 42 United States Code section 1983 (section 1983 ), the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the hospital and physician are not state actors for purposes of Julian's section 1983 claims, most of the provisions of the California Constitution Julian invoked do not create causes of action for damages, and Julian failed to state a claim for violations of those provisions that might provide such a cause of action. Finally, because the hospital defendants are not state actors for purposes of section 1983, they cannot be liable for Julian's alleged violations of the California Constitution. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The School Police Detain Julian

On May 1, 2012 Julian attended a mathematics department meeting in a classroom at the middle school where she taught.2 Julian claimed that at the end of the meeting another teacher "physically assaulted" her by grabbing her hand as she tried to close the door to the classroom. Julian reported the alleged assault to the school's principal, Nidia Castro, who told Julian she would report the incident to the school police. Julian asked Castro not to report the incident to the school police because, as Castro knew, Julian had "a severe nervous reaction" to the school police stemming from earlier incidents. Castro also knew Julian had a "seizure disorder that was exacerbated by extreme stress."

That evening Castro received a text message from Julian's close friend, Jackie Ibrahim, another teacher at the school who had been discussing with Julian some recent changes at the school. The message read, "Wow I finally convinced Katia to stay and now you throw me this curve ball—it seems the situation changes each day ... you really got our hopes up and now you are going back on what you said. I want to throw up and Katia wants to slit her wrists." Castro responded, "I am concerned about the line ‘Katia wants to slit her wri[s]ts' do I need to send someone to her? Are you with her? Will she be okay? This entire process has been very chaotic and has not been easy for me either. Just hang in there." Ibrahim informed Castro she was with Julian, and Castro took no further action at that time.

The following morning Castro met with Julian on an unrelated matter and recorded in her notes that they had "a very relaxed, friendly conversation." Despite Julian's request that Castro not report the alleged assault to the school police, Castro believed "a report needed to be made," so she sought advice from a superior who suggested she speak with someone in the office of crisis counseling. Castro explained to the crisis counselor that she knew she had a responsibility to address Julian's claim of a physical assault but wanted to be sensitive to her fear of the school police. Castro also explained she needed to be "extra sensitive" in light of Ibrahim's text stating that Julian wanted to slit her wrists. The crisis counselor reminded Castro of her "responsibility for employee safety" and advised her to follow the guidelines governing workplace violence.

Castro reported the alleged assault to Officer Libier Valencia, a school police officer assigned to the middle school, even though Castro knew Julian disliked Officer Valencia. While Castro was discussing the situation with Officer Valencia, Karen Miller and a crisis counselor called Castro with additional questions about Julian. During this conversation, Castro and Officer Valencia revealed that Julian had scratches on her forearms Julian had told Castro were caused by her cats and that Julian had expressed a need for "revenge" against yet another teacher who had crossed her. All of the participants in this conversation agreed they needed additional information from Julian about the alleged assault, and, because Castro and Officer Valencia knew Julian would not want to speak to Officer Valencia, they requested another officer question Julian. Sergeant Robert Taylor, Officer Valencia's superior officer, eventually arrived to question her.

Before questioning Julian, Sergeant Taylor called Miller for more information. Miller told Sergeant Taylor she was concerned about Julian's mental stability because Julian had recently lost a different lawsuit against the school district and had told her best friend she was going to "slit her wrists." Miller impressed upon Sergeant Taylor that Julian might be suicidal. Sergeant Taylor requested additional officers for backup, including Officers Yvonne Miranda, Elizabeth Lara, and Jose Cardenas.

Aware of Julian's previous encounters with Officer Valencia, Sergeant Taylor and Castro agreed that Castro would make initial contact with Julian and explain to her Sergeant Taylor was there to interview her about the alleged assault. The other officers remained in a conference room nearby while Castro approached Julian with Sergeant Taylor behind her. Castro told Julian the officer was there to "take her report." In response, Julian ran down the hallway and placed herself between a student desk and a copier. She told Sergeant Taylor she did not want to talk to him, began crying and screaming, and dropped or slid to the floor with her back against the wall. Another school administrator came out of her office, told Castro she had seen Julian do something similar before, and offered to take Julian into her office so she could calm down. Castro declined her offer because Julian continued screaming "get away from me" and Castro did not know at whom Julian was screaming.

According to Castro's notes, which Julian submitted in opposition to the school defendants' motion for summary judgment (and which the parties refer to as the "Castro timeline"), Sergeant Taylor asked Julian to "calm down" and told her "she [w]as safe." Julian began "screaming even louder." As Officer Valencia approached, Julian continued screaming, "Get away from me." Castro crouched down in front of Julian and told her she would not leave her alone with the officers and they would not harm her, while Sergeant Taylor remained four or five feet away. Julian told Castro she was afraid Sergeant Taylor was going to hurt her, and Castro told her that "all he wanted was to get her statement regarding her allegations of physical assault." Julian said Sergeant Taylor "was [taking] her freedom away." Castro asked Sergeant Taylor to leave her alone with Julian, but he said he could not do that. Sergeant Taylor stated that, "due to [Julian's] state and reactions, he was going to call paramedics," at which point Julian yelled she had done nothing wrong and continued to scream "leave" and "get away from me."

While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, Julian reached for her phone inside a small bag beside her. Not knowing what Julian was reaching for, Sergeant Taylor approached, knelt down, and turned Julian around to handcuff her. Julian resisted, and Sergeant Taylor called the other officers to assist. Officer Miranda attempted to control the growing crowd of students, employees, and parents in the area. Julian continued to scream, struggled with the officers, and complained after she had been handcuffed that her back hurt. Julian asked Castro to take her phone from her bag and call her attorney, but Castro was unable to call him before the ambulance arrived.

When the paramedics arrived, they attempted to move Julian to a gurney, but she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 2019
    ...the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws [of California].’ " ( Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 360, 394-395, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 ( Julian ).) " ‘[T]he statute was intended to address only egregious interferences with constitutional ri......
  • Rios v. Cnty. of Sacramento
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • September 29, 2021
    ...has the Ninth Circuit. See Roy v. Cty. of Los Angeles , 114 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1042 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ; Julian v. Mission Cmty. Hosp. , 11 Cal. App. 5th 360, 392, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (2017) (declining to reach question); see also Levin v. Barner , No. C042544, 2004 WL 1490915, at *5 (Cal. Ct. ......
  • Inman v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 27, 2018
    ...FAC ¶ 8, under California law, such a conclusory allegation cannot support a Bane Act claim. See Julian v. Mission Cmty. Hosp. , 11 Cal. App. 5th 360, 395, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (2017) ("Julian alleged without explanation that the police defendants ‘engaged in tactics to scare’ her. ‘Conclusor......
  • Estate of Osuna v. Cnty. of Stanislaus
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 24, 2019
    ...for damages under article I, section 13, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures." Julian v. Mission Cmty. Hosp. , 11 Cal. App. 5th 360, 392, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (2017). Federal district courts in California are split on this question. Compare, e.g. , Silva v. San Pablo Pol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • GRAVELY DISABLED: THE VESTIGIAL PRONG OF 5150 DESIGNATIONS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 34 No. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...officer asked if she was going to hurt herself, she responded that she would do "whatever" she wanted); Julian v. Mission Cmty. Hosp., 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 38 (Ct. App. 2017) (finding probable cause for a 5150 hold where plaintiff had told a close friend she was going to slit her own wrists); ......
  • Annual Health Law Review for 2017
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Business Law Section Annual Review (CLA) No. 2018, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...no bar to Medical Board subpoena for patient records during investigation of psychiatrist).Julian v. Mission Community Hospital, 11 Cal. App. 5th 360 (2017) (person involuntarily detained for mental health evaluation has no private right of action for violation of certain Lanterman-Petris-S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT