Case ID: f-appx_612/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Florentina DEMUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, a public entity; Wai Chiu R. Li, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-57197.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 2015.
    Filed Aug. 14, 2015.
    Daniel A. Crawford, Henry G. Wein-stein, Esquire, Crawford Weinstein LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, .Maureen Thomas, Michael Thomas, Esquire, Thomas And Thomas, Agoura Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KOZINSKI, CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

1. Quasi-judicial immunity protects only those “who faithfully execute valid court orders.” Coverdell v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 764 (9th Cir.1987). Referee Shirley’s comment explicitly provided for a non-arrest alternative in the event that Demuth refused to come to court. Because “absolute immunity does not protect defendants from damage claims directed ... to the manner of [a court order’s] execution,” Li isn’t entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Martin v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Pueblo, 909 F.2d 402, 405 (10th Cir.1990).

2. The district court’s rejection of De-muth’s state law claims against Li and the County of Los Angeles was premised entirely on its conclusion that Li’s conduct was reasonable. Because we hold in our opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum that Li’s conduct was not reasonable, we remand for reconsideration of these claims.

3. The district court properly treated Demuth’s wrongful arrest and excessive force claims as one and the same because both claims depended entirely on Li’s allegedly unauthorized arrest of Demuth.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

Costs to appellant. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.