Wu v. Cnty. of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 25 June 2012
• Docket Number: B235286
• Parties: FELIX WU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

FELIX WU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B235286

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

Dated: June 25, 2012

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC422949)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy Hogue, Judge. Affirmed.

Felix Wu, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Houle & Houle, Gregory Houle and Richard Houle, for Defendants and Respondents County of Los Angeles, Ronald Darlington, Rosa Tang and Latoya Anthony.

In 2007 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) detained Felix Wu's teenage daughters, Tiffany and Chelsea, after receiving school referrals alleging Wu had physically and emotionally abused the girls. The juvenile court sustained the petition filed by the Department under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), and the court's jurisdictional and disposition orders were affirmed on appeal.¹ Wu then sued the County of Los Angeles and social workers Ronald Darlington, Rosa Tang and Latoya Anthony (the County defendants), alleging tort and civil rights claims. Judgment was entered against Wu after the trial court granted the County defendants' motion for nonsuit. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Juvenile Court Proceedings²

The Department received a referral from Tiffany and Chelsea's school on November 20, 2007, alleging physical and emotional child abuse perpetrated by Wu.³ The girls reported they were afraid to go home because Wu had hit them the previous Sunday and Monday and they were apprehensive the abuse would continue as the hitting appeared to be escalating in frequency. Wu denied the conduct but admitted hitting Tiffany on her head "a couple times" after she swore at him. The Department found "a definite parent/child conflict [existed] within this family" and recommended the children remain detained because their return to Wu would be contrary to their welfare.

The Department filed a dependency petition on November 27, 2007. The petition alleged physical abuse causing the girls unreasonable pain and suffering and causingthem to be afraid of their father. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (a) [nonaccidental serious physical harm] & (b) [failure to protect from serious physical harm].) The petition also alleged there existed a severe parent-child conflict in that Wu was unable to safely and adequately parent the children, who were afraid of him because of his temper and angry outbursts. After the initial hearing the petition was amended to additionally allege Tiffany had on multiple occasions cut her wrists and both Tiffany and Chelsea had engaged in suicidal ideation as a result of Wu's consistent verbal abuse; meanwhile, Wu had refused to acknowledge or seek treatment for the girls' suicidal ideations and depression. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (c) [serious emotional harm].)

The jurisdiction and disposition hearing lasted nearly a month, with 11 days of testimony from the girls, Wu and the girls' therapist. The juvenile court sustained the allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and conformed the petition according to proof under subdivision (c). The court observed, "This entire trial has been about not dealing with how these children feel or what they've done, thought about, in regards to those feelings, but rather addressing why they have no right to feel that way. [¶] . . . [¶] These girls have been clearly screaming in their own right about their upset, their frustration, their depression, both suicidal ideations and attempts at that, which is cutting her wrists as Tiffany did on multiple occasions. [¶] They have 'lost' their mother to a mental institution. They've had a lot to deal with. And yet Mr. W[u] does not seem to believe they have any right to feel anything." The court observed, although it could not count the number of slash marks on Tiffany's wrist, Wu had raised her wrist in court, called her a liar and ridiculed her. "If that's not abuse, under [Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivision] (c), I don't know what is[]," said the court. The court also found that everyone has tried to explain the problem to father, from the social workers, the caretakers, the children's therapist, and father's own therapist, to the girls themselves but Wu did not want to hear and "doesn't care."

The court declared the children dependents of the court and found by clear and convincing evidence (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)) there was a substantial danger to the children's health and safety if they were returned home and there was noreasonable means to protect them. The court removed the girls from Wu, placed them under the supervision of the Department and ordered family reunification services for Wu with monitored visitation. Division Three of this court affirmed the juvenile court orders on March 9, 2009.

In the interim, the juvenile court conducted a six-month review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e). Wu had failed to enroll in any of the court-ordered classes or counseling, had written multiple letters criticizing the Department's conduct and assessments and had begun a campaign of harassing the children's caregivers, which forced the girls to be relocated. Notwithstanding the continuing conflict with Wu, the girls' behavior had improved significantly since their removal. After a contested hearing the court found a continuing need for their placement and Wu's progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement had been "very minimal." On April 20, 2009 Division Three affirmed the six-month review order.⁴

2. Wu's Suit Against the County Defendants

On October 2, 2009 Wu sued the County defendants. He filed a first amended complaint on October 15, 2009 alleging common law causes of action for fraud and deceit and a civil rights claim under title 42 of the United States Code section 1983 (section 1983).⁵ In support of his fraud claims Wu alleged Department employees had hidden evidence and information favorable to him to ensure the girls remained under the jurisdiction of the dependency court, falsely promised to help him regain custody of the girls and taught the girls to lie in court. He claimed damages in excess of $100 million.

After answering the first amended complaint Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground Wu's causes of action were barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. While the trial court agreed many of the issues of fact raised by Wu had previously been determined or were precluded by the findings in the dependency proceedings, it denied the motion because a triable issue of fact existed on the question whether, under Government Code section 820.21, subdivision (a)(3),⁶ an exception to the general civil immunity of public employees, Wu could prove that one or more Department employees had maliciously failed to disclose exculpatory evidence.⁷

The trial court filed its order denying summary judgment on September 29, 2010. The County defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment on December 9, 2010, contending Wu could not establish a triable issue of fact on the question of exculpatory evidence. On February 28, 2011 the court continued the hearing on the motion to require the County defendants to file underlying discovery responses in support of the motion. The County defendants lodged numerous discovery responses with the court but, at the hearing on May 2, 2011, acknowledged Wu's deposition had never been taken. The court continued the trial date and scheduled a further hearing to coincide with the July 12, 2011 final status conference to allow Wu to augment his declarations, as best he could, to establish the County defendants had maliciously failed to disclose exculpatory evidence during the course of the dependency proceedings. The court also stated it would conduct a hearing under Evidence Code section 402 on the first day of trial on the same question if necessary.

At the July 12, 2011 hearing the court indicated its tentative ruling to grant the pending motion for summary judgment based on Wu's previous submissions. As thecourt explained, Wu had submitted extensive declarations containing "whatever evidence he has." Wu complained that he had not been able to get discovery in the dependency court and that records from that proceeding showed Department social workers had omitted relevant evidence and fabricated other statements. Counsel for the County defendants noted Wu had been provided with the entire dependency court record and had deposed 10 Department employees in addition to the defendant social workers. The court was not persuaded by Wu's arguments and indicated an opinion would be forthcoming.

In the absence of a final ruling, however, the parties submitted trial briefs in anticipation of the Evidence Code section 402 hearing. On August 1, 2011, the first day of trial, the court announced it had reviewed the evidence and concluded as a matter of law Wu had failed to establish the malicious concealment of exculpatory evidence favoring Wu. As a threshold matter the court noted there could be no truly exculpatory evidence when the basis for removing the girls from Wu's custody was conflict between the girls and Wu, not some wrongdoing by Wu. At the court's suggestion the County defendants moved for a nonsuit, which was granted.

In its final order granting the judgment of nonsuit the court found Wu's section 1983 claim was barred and the...