Stocker v. Bloomfield

• Decision Date: 12 May 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:19-cv-00105-CL
• Parties: ROCHELLE STOCKER, Plaintiff, v. BRENDA BLOOMFIELD, CAROLYN LESLEY, CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON, and NOEL LESLEY EVENT SERVICES, INC. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

ROCHELLE STOCKER, Plaintiff, v. BRENDA BLOOMFIELD, CAROLYN LESLEY, CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON,and NOEL LESLEY EVENT SERVICES, INC. Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00105-CL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

May 12, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.

This case comes before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims brought against them, while Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's first claim for relief only. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (#44) is DENIED. Defendants Detective Garich and the City of Medfords' Motion for Summary Judgment (#38) is GRANTED. Defendants Carolyn Lesley and NLES, Inc.s' Motion for Summary Judgment (#42) is GRANTED.¹ All claims are found in favor of defendants.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings claims against her former employer, Noel Lesley Event Services, Inc. ("NLES") and Carolyn Lesley ("Lesley"), and against the City of Medford and Medford Detective Brenda Garich (formerly known as Brenda Bloomfield and hereafter referred to as "Garich") for violations of her substantive due process rights for failure to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence, invasion of privacy, negligent release of confidential information, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with a business relationship, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and fraud. These claims arise from Plaintiff's alleged theft against her employer, for which Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury and criminal charges were brought by the Jackson County District Attorney. The theft charge was later dismissed, and this lawsuit followed shortly after.

a. The theft investigation and prosecution

NLES is an event services company that has provided tenting services for the NFL during annual Super Bowl events. Supp. Rowan Decl., Ex. 2 at 15 (#55-2). Lesley at all material times was and is the president of NLES. Id. at 12. Plaintiff started working for NLES on March 15, 2015, as the company's bookkeeper. Plaintiff was primarily responsible for accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, and some budgeting tasks. Kucera Decl., Ex. 1 at 33 (#43-1). At some point during Plaintiff's employment with NLES, she informed Lesley that she was planning to take a leave of absence. At the request of another NLES employee, Lori Cook (also known as Lori Flatley), Lesley installed an audit software called Keylogger on Plaintiff's workcomputer. The purpose of the software was to obtain bookkeeping passwords and processes for use while Plaintiff was on leave. Kucera Decl., Ex. 6 at 40-42, 49. Lori Cook began using the Keylogger software to review Plaintiff's computer activity to learn the bookkeeping processes. Ms. Cook soon discovered that Plaintiff was using her work computer for personal tasks such as applying for a new job, online shopping, and managing her personal finances. Id. at 46. NLES eventually became aware that Plaintiff had been paying herself for time and reimbursements to which NLES claims she was not entitled.

On January 31, 2017, Lesley contacted Plaintiff about a significant number of mileage reimbursements that Lesley believed Plaintiff was not entitled to. Lesley wrote, "the mail is on the way to work and the bank is on the way home from work. If you are paying yourself, I would expect documentation and my sign off. Please send all back up - but I'm not in agreement." Garich Decl., Ex. 1 at 20-21 (#39). A few minutes later, Plaintiff responded "Should I write a check and reimburse the company for my mileage?" Id. at 20. Approximately 20 minutes later, Plaintiff printed 10 pages of mileage reimbursement forms. Id. at 22. Plaintiff then used her work computer to look up the address of the Phoenix USPS Office, the mileage from work to the Phoenix USPS Office, and the address of the FedEx office. Id. at 23-26. Plaintiff then deleted her internet browser history. Id. at 27-28. Plaintiff continued to look up her paycheck detail and vendor payments to herself for each pay period and she printed 15 more mileage reimbursement forms. Id. at 29-42. That afternoon, Plaintiff emailed 15 pages of mileage forms to Lesley. Id. at 43-44. Plaintiff claimed in her deposition that the mileage forms were recorded day-by-day over the course of multiple years and filed in her desk. Mitton Decl., Ex. 8 at 112-13 (#41-8). Plaintiff admitted in her deposition that she did not give these mileage forms to Ms. Cook or toLesley for review or approval prior to adding the amounts to her paycheck and processing payroll. Id. at 113-16.

Defendants have provided evidence of these allegedly unauthorized reimbursements, including evidence that Plaintiff claimed mileage on days that she did not work for NLES. See Garich Decl., Ex. 1 (#39-1). For example, Plaintiff claimed six miles driven on May 16, 2016, even though she had not worked that day due to illness. Id. at 1, 14. Plaintiff claimed 16 miles on January 16, 2017, but again did not work that day due to illness. Id. at 2, 3. Plaintiff claimed 16 miles on January 3, 2017, but did not work that day due to heavy snowfall. Id. at 3, 18. Additionally, defendants have provided evidence that the distance from the NLES office to the post office is just .9 miles, and a round trip from the NLES office to the post office to the bank and back to NLES is just 2.7 miles. Mitton Decl., Ex. 3 (#41-3). And yet, Plaintiff continuously claimed anywhere from six or sixteen miles for such trips.

The NLES employee handbook states that all mileage reimbursements must be approved in advance:

Employee travel performed in the course of conducting Company business or training related to the employee's position must be approved in advance. Details must be provided along with authorization and approval from a manager or the President of the Company in order for an employee to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the use of their personal vehicle.

NLES Employee Handbook (#43-13). Plaintiff was the sole employee responsible for processing payroll at NLES. Kucera Decl., Ex. 1 at 38. Plaintiff would process and complete payroll, and then submit to Lesley the total gross amount for all employees. Id. 41. Plaintiff did not provide a breakdown of each employee's paycheck to Lesley. Id. Lesley claims that Plaintiff never sought preapproval before charging NLES for daily mileage, and that she was not awarethat Plaintiff was paying herself mileage until January 31, 2017. Mitton Decl., Ex. 10 at 55-56 (#41-10).

On February 1, 2017, Lesley sent a text message to Medford Detective Garich stating that she believed Plaintiff was "adding money to her checks." Rowan Dec, Ex. 2 at 1 (#46-2). Lesley explained, "I confronted her and her stories keep changing but she acknowledged that she has no approval to reimburse herself. She did it this month too [and is] (sic) going back and making stuff up that I can prove is wrong." Id. Lesley then asked Detective Garich, "What can I do?" Id. Garich responded, "That is called stealing and theft!" Id. at 2. Lesley then asked, "What is the process to go after her?" and disclosed that Plaintiff was making $50,000 when she started at NLES and now has $126k in savings, $6k in her checking account and $530k in and (sic) Edward Jones account. She hasn't gotten that from her 'job.'" Id. To which Garich responded, "You want money or jail? You have all the evidence, just need to document how she is adding it (screenshots and a copy of the computer will work). Do you think she had all the money in her accounts from you?" Id. The conversation continued with Garich explaining that Lesley needed figure out how much money was lost and that she had the option of pursuing criminal charges or a civil compromise. Id. at 3. Lesley and Garich agreed that Garich would meet with NLES employee, Ms. Cook, to further investigate and obtain evidence of the alleged theft. Id.

Lesley and Detective Garich are friends and Garich had worked on a case previously involving NLES. Supp. Rowan Decl., Ex. 4 at 17 (#55-4). The Medford Police Department has approximately 14 detectives, divided between financial crimes and general/major crimes. Garich Decl. (#39). Garich was assigned to the financial crimes unit. Garich testified that it was not unusual for her to investigate crimes that occurred outside of the City of Medford, including inthe City of Phoenix where NLES is located because Phoenix has no financial crimes detective or detectives of any type. Id.

On February 2, 2017, Garich met with NLES employee Lori Cook to initiate the criminal investigation of Plaintiff. Cook provided Garich with evidence of unauthorized phone, mileage, and fuel reimbursements made to Plaintiff. NLES also hired an accountant, John Warekois, to look into NLES's financials and investigate the extent of Plaintiff's alleged misappropriation of funds. On February 3, 2017, Lesley asked Garich, "How will I get my money back??" Rowan Decl., Ex 2 at 4 (#46-2). Garich, knowing that Warekois was also looking at NLES's corporate books, responded, "Once John [Warekois] does his work and we have a final on how much she took we will talk. Looks like for 2015, about $1k, 2016 is $2k and this is not counting bonus. Lori [Cook] wasn't sure if the bonuses listed on her paystubs were correct and said you would have to look at them. This is just totals from fuel/phone 'reimbursements'." Id. at 4-5.

NLES collected and turned over to Detective Garich documentation that showed Plaintiff had paid herself $5,850.59 of unauthorized funds while employed by NLES. On February 14, 2017, an official police report was filed with the Medford Police Department and Sergeant Brent Mak officially assigned Detective Garich to the case against Plaintiff.

On February 16, 2017, Garich received an email from accountant John Warekois (hereinafter referred to as the "Warekois email") in...