Santana v. Cnty. of Yuba

Decision Date31 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 2:15-cv-00794 KJM-EFB,2:15-cv-00794 KJM-EFB
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
PartiesJESSE I. SANTANA, et al., Plaintiff, v. THE COUNTY OF YUBA, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background ............................................................................................................................. 4
A. Allegations ......................................................................................................................... 4
1. Civil Settlement Negotiations in 2007 .............................................................................. 4
2. Santana's Judicial Application and the Criminal Prosecution .......................................... 8
B. Procedural History of this Case ....................................................................................... 11
II. Special Motions to Strike ..................................................................................................... 13
A. In General ........................................................................................................................ 13
B. Anti-SLAPP Motions in Federal Court ........................................................................... 14
C. Protected Activity ............................................................................................................ 16
1. Evans ............................................................................................................................... 16
2. Yuba County Defendants ................................................................................................ 17
D. Unprotected Conduct Illegal as a Matter of Law ............................................................ 20
III. Anti-SLAPP Legal Sufficiency; Federal-Law Motions to DISMISS ............................... 21
A. Legal Sufficiency in an Anti-SLAPP Motion ................................................................. 21
B. Legal Standard on a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) ......................................... 21
C. Yuba County Defendants ................................................................................................ 22
1. Federal Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ......................................................................... 22
2. State Law Claims ............................................................................................................. 39
3. Motion for a More Definite Statement ............................................................................ 41
D. City of Marysville and Randall Elliott ............................................................................ 41
E. Judge Scrogin .................................................................................................................. 44
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction .............................................................................................. 44
2. Judicial Absolute Immunity ............................................................................................ 46
3. State Law Claims and Immunities ................................................................................... 50
F. Timothy Evans .................................................................................................................... 52
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction .............................................................................................. 52
2. State Law Claims ............................................................................................................. 533. Leave to Amend .............................................................................................................. 57
IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 58

In April 2014, a jury acquitted attorneys Jesse Santana and David Vasquez of all charges of bribing a witness and obstructing justice. In this civil lawsuit, filed after the criminal trial's conclusion, Santana and Vasquez contend the prosecution was part of a plan to thwart Santana's appointment to the Sutter County Superior Court. The defendants all move to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and several also filed special motions to strike the complaint under California Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the state's "anti-SLAPP" statute.

The court held a hearing on August 7, 2015. Jaime Leaños appeared for Santana and Vasquez. Lauren Calnero appeared for Yuba County, Patrick McGrath, John Vacek, Mary Barr, and Gene Stober. John Whitesides appeared for the City of Marysville and Randall Elliot. Michael Fox appeared for Judge Julia Scrogin. Wendy Green appeared for Timothy Evans. After considering the parties' briefing and the arguments at hearing, the court grants the motions to dismiss, in part with leave to amend, and grants in part and denies in part the special motions to strike without prejudice to renewal.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Allegations

The story of Santana's and Vasquez's complaint spans several years. At this stage, their case rests on only allegations, but on a motion to dismiss, the court regards these allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Santana and Vasquez allege as follows.

1. Civil Settlement Negotiations in 2007

A little more than eight years ago, in early November 2007, Detective Randall Elliott of the Marysville Police Department met with Socorro Acevedo, her mother, and her sister about an alleged case of abuse. Compl. ¶ 34, ECF No. 1. Acevedo, at the time younger than eighteen, told Elliott that Joseph Griesa, her boss at a local towing company, had physically and sexually abused her at work. Id. She showed Elliott some sexual text messages she had received from Griesa. Id. ¶ 50. After the interview, Elliott attempted to investigate her story by making a pretextual phone call to Griesa, but was unsuccessful. Id. ¶ 51. He told Acevedo it would be a

/////tough case to prosecute because the trial would likely come down to a he-said, she-said credibility contest. Id. But he suggested Acevedo could pursue a civil remedy. Id. ¶¶ 35-36.

After Elliott told Acevedo and her family the police could probably not help them, he again contacted Griesa, the alleged abuser, who was a former probation officer. Id. ¶ 52. Elliott said he was investigating Acevedo's allegations that Griesa sexually abused Acevedo, gave him a copy of the relevant Penal Code sections, and told him to talk to a lawyer before saying anything. Id. Griesa agreed. Id. He hired David Vasquez. Id. ¶ 53. Vasquez called Elliott, who told him about the charges he was investigating. Id. Vasquez said he would be on vacation, and asked that Elliott wait to forward the results of his investigation to the District Attorneys' Office until after he returned and had a chance to review the case and talk about it with Griesa. Id. ¶ 54. Elliott agreed to wait. Id.

Later the same month, Elliott heard from Acevedo's sister that Griesa had begun removing his computer, video camera, and other things from his office. Id. ¶ 55. She said these items contained evidence of the alleged abuse and would corroborate Acevedo's story, so Elliott should obtain a warrant and search Griesa's office. Id. ¶ 56. It was a late Friday afternoon, and Elliott thought it would take hours to prepare an affidavit and obtain a warrant from a judge and much longer to search the tow yard where Griesa worked. Id. ¶ 57. He said a warrant would not be worth the effort because a search would turn up no evidence. Id. ¶ 58. He reiterated his impression that the case would come down to a credibility contest between Griesa and Acevedo, and never obtained a warrant. Id. ¶ 58.

In the meantime, Acevedo and her family had contacted an attorney, Jesse Santana. Id. ¶ 37. They told him the interview with Elliott had left them feeling helpless. Id. Santana agreed to represent them pro bono and reassured them of their option to seek compensation from Griesa in a civil case. Id. ¶¶ 38, 41. Santana said the family had some time before they needed to file a complaint, and that he could attempt to negotiate a settlement with Griesa, but because Acevedo was younger than eighteen, a judge would need to approve any agreement. Id. ¶ 39. Acevedo told Santana she preferred to keep the lurid details of the ordeal private; she feared that if her father learned about the abuse, he could suffer a stroke, and that ifher brother learned about it, he would take matters into his own hands. Id. ¶ 40. She said she didn't want to testify about the abuse in court or file any criminal charges. Id. Santana agreed to pursue a settlement with Griesa and avoid the publicity of a civil complaint or criminal case. Id. ¶ 41.

Griesa had similar conversations with Vasquez. Id. ¶¶ 69-70. Griesa was concerned that if Acevedo's allegations were made public, they would be extremely damaging to his reputation, to his high school coaching position, and to his business. Id. ¶ 69. Vasquez told Griesa that sexual assault victims generally choose not to testify about the abuse in open court, and that if the District Attorney learned Acevedo would not testify, charges might not be filed. Id. ¶ 78. Vasquez cautioned this was no guarantee, and a criminal case was always a possibility, id., but Griesa said he was not worried about a criminal prosecution and asked Vasquez how to handle the civil suit, id. ¶ 70. Vasquez said he could attempt to resolve the case out of court and avoid any public disclosure of Acevedo's allegations, and Griesa asked him to try. Id. ¶¶ 70-71. In a follow-up meeting, Vasquez cautioned Griesa again he could make no guarantees about the criminal case, but the two discussed a possible good-faith payment of $50,000 to encourage civil settlement discussions. Id. ¶¶ 70, 72. Vasquez deposited the money into his client trust account and cautioned Griesa that any final...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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