Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Stephenson, CV 83-8220-ER.
| Decision Date | 24 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 83-8220-ER.,CV 83-8220-ER. |
| Citation | 805 F. Supp. 824 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | SINALOA LAKE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, a California corporation; Robert A. Ain; Diantha Ain; Leonard Bellenson; Ann Bellenson; Alvin Bennett; Edward T. Bergin; Edward T. Bergin as Executor for the Estate of Ruth Bergin; Edward D. Bigenho; Caryl Bigenho; Junious W. Burrage, Pearl Burrage; Alan T. Canfield; Irene R. Canfield; Robert A. Goosen, Judith A. Goosen; Malcolm R. Harding; Patricia I. Harding; John B. Hayes; Janet H. Hayes; William Hill; W.L. Hodson; Dorothy J. Hodson; William J. Hull, Jr.; Donna R. Hull; C.R. Joshi; Rekha C. Joshi; Karl Kernberger as Executor for the Estates of Monica Kernberger and H.R. Kernberger; Richard D. Price; Elaine D. Price; Peter J. Schnetzler; Jannice M. Schnetzler; Fred N. Schultz; Diane Schultz; William A. Seaman; Jane M. Seaman; E. Dean Seymour; Josephine Seymour; Grace Sorrels; Ronald J. Sparks; Mary Lou Sparks; David L. Strathearn; Sandra Stutzman; James Stutzman; and Shirley E. Najemnik Turner, Plaintiffs, v. Roger STEPHENSON; James Doody; V.H. Persson; David Jacinto; James E. Ley; and Howard McEwen as Executor for the Estate of Sheldon Slack McEwen, Defendants. |
Jerrold A. Fadem, Keith W. Douglas, Mark Schaeffer, Fadem & Douglas, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs, Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n & individual plaintiffs.
Gary A. Hamblet, Shari L. Rosenthal, Eugene Egan, Breidenbach, Swainston, Crispo & Way, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant, James J. Doody.
Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Keith G. Wileman, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants, Roger Stephenson & James E. Ley.
Thomas A. Freiberg, Jr., David A. Buchen, Fulbright & Jaworski, Robert C. Ceccon, Saskia T. Asamura, Richards, Watson & Gershon, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants, David Jacinto, & Howard McEwen as Executor of the Estate of Sheldon McEwen.
Thomas J. Feeley, Jr., Jean M. Daly, Stone & Feeley, P.C., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant, Vernon Persson.
This case came before the Court for a jury trial on August 18, 1992, the Honorable Edward Rafeedie, United States District Court Judge presiding. Jerrold A. Fadem, Mark Schaeffer, Fadem and Douglas, for plaintiffs, Sinaloa Lake Owners Association. Gary Hamblet, Shari Rosenthal, Breidenbach, Swainston, Crispo and Way, appearing for the defendant James Doody; Thomas J. Feeley, Jean M. Daly, Stone & Feeley, P.C., appearing for the defendant Vernon Persson; Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Keith Wileman, Lord, Bissell and Brook, appearing for defendants Roger Stephenson and James Ley; Thomas A. Freiberg, Jr., David A. Buchen, Fulbright & Jaworski, Saskia T. Asamura, Richards, Watson and Gershon, appearing for defendants David Jacinto and Howard McEwen, executor of the estate of Sheldon McEwen.
At the conclusion of plaintiffs' case, the Court granted Judgment as a Matter of Law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1)1 as to all defendants, except defendant Doody. At the conclusion of the defendant's case the Court granted defendant Doody's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(2)2.
This was an action brought by the Sinaloa Lake Owners Association, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Chief of the California Division of Safety of Dams (hereinafter DSOD), Mr. James Doody, and his subordinate engineers who responded to and were active in dealing with an emergency dam failure during heavy rains in late February and early March of 1983. Plaintiffs alleged defendants intentionally deprived them of rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by breaching their dam. Breaching a dam is the process of cutting a "V"-shaped notch in the dam to preclude the accumulation and storage of water behind the dam.
First, plaintiffs argue that defendants' decision to breach Sinaloa dam was made without good cause because there was never an emergency situation at the dam. The gravamen of plaintiffs' case is that the members of the California Division of Safety of Dams acted for an improper purpose by secretly forming the intent to breach the dam even though it was not required. Plaintiffs contend that this intent was concealed for the purpose of preventing plaintiffs from taking any legal actions to oppose the dam's breach. This claim, they allege, is supported by engineer Doody's act of directing contractors to breach the dam without immediately notifying the plaintiffs of this decision. Thus, plaintiffs argue that defendants specifically intended to deprive the plaintiffs of notice and an opportunity to be heard. This comprises plaintiff's procedural due process claims.
Plaintiff's substantive due process claim challenges the breaching of the dam as an arbitrary and capricious act. Plaintiffs argue that the breach was ordered by the defendant despite defendant's knowledge that the dam was perfectly safe and did not pose a public safety hazard which would require a breach. Plaintiffs further allege, as a part of this claim, that the action was also taken vindictively, in retaliation against plaintiffs for not responding to safety demands made by the DSOD on prior occasions. Finally, plaintiffs contend that even had emergency conditions existed, defendants should have properly responded with less intrusive means than the breaching of their dam.
The plaintiffs own homes nearby Sinaloa lake. The Sinaloa Lake Owners Association (SLOA) owns the Sinaloa Dam (the Dam) and the land beneath the lake. The dam is an earthen structure, built in 1925 as a farming reservoir. How the dam was constructed and its exact composition at the base were unknown. Defendant James Doody was Division Chief of the DSOD at the time of the events precipitating this litigation. He is now retired. The DSOD was responsible for the supervision of dams and reservoirs within DSOD jurisdiction. The DSOD's functions are governed by Sections 6000 through 6501 of the California Water Code.
In late February and early March of 1983, there were heavy rains in the area of Sinaloa dam which caused the water level behind the dam to rise. These rains continued through March 3, 1983. On March 2, 1983, two large land slides occurred on the face of the dam. These slides were reported to officials of the City of Simi Valley and Ventura County. That same day, the Simi Valley Chief of Police ordered the evacuation of hundreds of downstream residents due to the potential danger presented by the dam.
DSOD officials were called and arrived at the dam. The dam was covered with plastic sheeting and measures were taken to relieve pressure on the dam, including the pumping and siphoning of water. On March 4, defendant Doody made a determination that the dam no longer had the capacity to retain water and had to be breached.
Over the next several days, through DSOD efforts, the water level was lowered and residents were allowed to return to their homes. The named defendants also inspected the dam, the spillway, and slide conditions. The DSOD determined that the dam's spillway required modifications to allow for additional water drainage.
On March 11, the defendant engineers met with SLOA officials and their attorney before noon and advised them that the DSOD was going to breach the dam. This decision was made after determining that the dam was unsafe and was intended to avoid the possibility of any future emergency conditions in the area. DSOD Division Chief Doody made the decision to breach the dam. His decision was based on the recommendations of his DSOD subordinate engineers who had been evaluating information obtained from tests performed during a week of extensive operations at the dam. Specifically, Doody relied on the reports of a Regional Engineer for the Southern Region, the Chief of the Engineering Branch, an Associate Field Engineer for Area 7, the Chief of the Field Engineering Branch, and an Area Engineer for Area 7 of the DSOD. All DSOD engineers were in agreement that the dam was unsafe and required breaching.
The SLOA contacted an attorney to sue in state court to obtain a temporary restraining order to prevent state DSOD officials from breaching the dam should they decide to do so. The DSOD delayed breaching the dam until the matter was heard in court. On March 11, Judge Peck of the Ventura County Superior Court denied the SLOA's application for a restraining order. Plaintiffs did not seek a stay of the denial in order to obtain appellate review. The dam was breached after Judge Peck denied the restraining order.
Plaintiffs have based their constitutional claim on a theory that defendant's actions were undertaken with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of their procedural and substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court concludes, however, that as a matter of law, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the DSOD officials. Thus, the preliminary inquiry into the qualified immunity issue is ultimately dispositive.
The defendants made a motion for judgment on qualified immunity grounds at the conclusion of plaintiff's case. The Court granted motion as to all defendants' except for defendant Doody. A ruling on Doody's motion was deferred until the evidentiary case had been concluded.
When performing discretionary functions, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). State officials cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established...
To continue reading
Request your trial