N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
XUE LU a

nd JIE HAO, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-56715

D.C . No. 2:01-c v-01758-C B M -E
M EM O R ANDUM *

XUE LU a

nd JIE HAO, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-55442

D.C . No. 2:01-c v-01758-C B M -E

XUE LU a

nd JIE HAO, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s, No. 14-55972 D.C . No. 2:01-c v-01758-C B M -E



# FIL ED
JAN 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO U RT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1v.

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C onsue lo B . M arsha ll, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, FISHER , a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. The Unite d State s a

ppe a ls a judgm e nt a g a i nst it under the Fe de ra l Tort C la im s Ac t

(FTC A) and a

n a ward of attorne y s ’ fe e s to Pla intiffs. W e AFFIRM the distric t c o urt’ s da

m a ge award, but VAC ATE a nd RE M A

ND the fe e award for
re c o nside ra tion. 1. The gove rnm e nt c o n te nds tha t the distric t c ourt a

warde d da

m a g e s ba se d on Powe ll’ s ba

tte ry , whic h i s ba

rre d by 28 U.S.C . § 2680(h). It points to, a t be st,
one or two a

m biguous sta

t e m e nts, whic h

whe n re a d in c onte xt do not show tha t the distric t c o urt a

warde d da

m a ge s for batte ry . R athe r, the distric t c ourt’ s opinion de m onstra

te s tha t it a warde d da

m a ge s only

for injurie s arising out of the

“ insta nc e [s] in whic h Powe ll de m ande d m one y or se xua l grat ific ation from Lu or Ha o a s a c ondition for e x e rc ising his discre tion in fa vor of a s y lum .” Xue Lu v

. Unite d State s , No. 2:01-01758, 2013 W L 4007770, a

t ¶¶ 59, 62 (C .D. C a l. Aug. 5, 22013). It found tha t the se c om

pe nsa ble injurie s we re “ distinc t” from those suffe re d
a s a re sult of Powe ll’ s ba

tte ry . Id . at ¶ 58. W e se e no e rror he re . 2. The gove rnm e nt a l so c ontinue s to a rgue tha t Ha o c onse nte d to Powe ll’ s torts. Thedistric t c o urt re je c te d this a sse rtion a

nd found tha

t it wa s m a de in ba d fa ith. Unde te rre d, the gove rnm e nt m a inta i ns a s it did be low tha t by a gre e ing to the sting, Ha o c onse nte d not only to Powe ll’ s solic ita

t ions, but al so to his se xua l batte ry (a tort whic h the gove rnm e nt re c ogniz e s is not be fore us). Going to a pla c e knowing wrongdoing m

a y oc c ur is not c onse nt to it; nor is a gre e ing to he l p c olle c t
e vide nc e of it should it oc c ur. The gove rnm e nt c ite s no re m ote ly sim ila r c a se supporting its position a

nd its a rgum e nt ha s littlelogic a l forc e . The distric t c ourt’ s finding is c orre c t. 3. The distric t c ourt a

warde d Ha o da

m a ge s in pa

rt be c a u se Powe ll c a

use d five of the se v e n y e ars of de la y in the proc e ssing of he r m e ritorious a sy lum
a pplic a tion. Thegove rnm e n t’ s inde pe nde nt inte rve n ing c a use argum e n t is fore c lose d by Bank

of N e w York v . Fre mont Ge ne ral C

orp., in whic h we c onc lude d that “ the notion of inde

pe nde nt inte rve ning c a

use ha s no pla c e in [C a lifornia ’ s] la w of inte ntiona l torts.” 523 F.3d 902, 910 (9th C i r. 2008) (inte rna l quota tion m ark
om i tte d). Although the

gove rnm e nt rightly

points to som

e te nsion in C a lifornia la w on this que stion, wefind no c ontrolling inte rve ning pre c e d e n ts a

n d thus a re 3bound by Bank of N e w York
. Se e F.D.I.C

. v . Mc Sw e e ne

y , 976 F.2d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 1992). 1 4. Anothe r part of the se v e n y e a r de la y , the fina l two y e ars be twe e n Ha o
re c e iving a

fa ir a sy l um

inte rvie w a

nd be ing gra

nte d a sy lum , wa s not c a

u se d by Powe ll’ s torts. Ha o m ay

have suffe re d suc h a

de la y if she ha d be e n a ssigne d a fa ir
a sy lum offic e r in the first pla c e , a lbe it the de la y would ha ve oc c urre d at a

n e arlie r tim e . The distric t c o urt’ s finding to the c o ntra ry is not supporte d in the re c o rd and
wa s c le arly

e rrone ous. 2013 W

L 4007770 a

t ¶ 68. Ne ve rthe le ss, we c onc lude tha t no da m a ge s we re inde pe nde ntly attributa ble to the se la st two y e a

rs. Ha o’ s injurie s
are n ot limite d

the de la y itse lf, whic h c o uld be prope rly lim ite d to five y e ars, but
a lso inc lude the e m o t iona l stre ss tha t e xte nde d through the

e ntire c o urse of the
ne arly e ight y e ar pe riod she spe nt wa iting for there solution of her c a s e . Powe ll’ s tortious a buse of his position wa s a substa ntia l fa c tor tha

t proxim ate ly

c a use d the se
1 Eve n if the inte rve ning c a use doc t rine we re a

pplic a ble to inte ntiona l torts in som e c irc um sta

nc e s, suc h c irc um sta

nc e s would berare , se e Bre w e r v . Te ano , 40 C a l. App. 4th 1024, 1036 (C t. App. 1995), a

nd the doc trine would not a pply he re . Thus, we would still c onc lude tha t Powe l l’ s torts proximate ly c a use d the five y e ar de la y . Powe ll c ould ha

ve fore s e e n tha

t his tortious c onduc t m ight le a d to de la y s in Ha o’ s a sy lum

proc e e dings while

the a uthoritie s sorte d out wha

t ha d ha ppe n e d. Se e Pool v . C ity of Oak land, 42 C a l. 3d 1051, 1063 (1986). M ore ove r, the (the n) INS’ de c ision to de la

y turne d on the tortiousne s s, pe r se , of Powe ll’ s c onduc t, se tting it far a pa rt from the c a se s the gove rnm e nt c ite s . Also, c ontra

ry to the gove rnm e n t’ s a

rgum e nts, the disc re tiona

ry func tion e xc e ption is not re le va

nt he re . Ha o’ s c la im s a

re not ba s e d on the INS’ s fa ilure to e xe rc ise due c are : whe the r the INS wa s we l l justifie d, unwise , or ne glige nt in de c iding to wait is not im porta nt. 4prolonge d e m otiona l injurie s. Se e id. at ¶ 73. The dam a ge s the distric t c ourt

awarde d a

re thus still a

ppropria te unde r C a lifornia

la w. Se e Ruthe rford v . Ow e nsIllinois, Inc

. , 941 P.2d 1203, 1214 (C a l. 1997). As a re sult, thee rror did not a ffe c t substa ntia l rights a

nd is ha rm le ss. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 61. 5. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to a pply c olla te ra l e stoppe l to whe the r Lu wa s pre gna

nt in la te 1999. Theim

m i gration judgein Lu’ s a sy lum c a se found tha t she wa s not pre gna

nt in theU.S. in 1999. Howeve r, the issue of Lu’ s pre g na nc y wa s not “ ne c e ssa

ry to support the

judgm e nt[] ” in the a sy lum proc e e ding. S

e e R e solution Trust C

orp. v . K e ating , 186 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th C ir. 1999). In fa c t, it is unc le ar whe the r the B IA de c ide d the que stion of the 1999 pre g na nc y on a ppe a l. The B IA re lie d on the “ c onste lla tion of proble m s ” in diffe re nt pa

rts of the te stim o ny

provide d by Lu a

n d he r form e r husba

nd
 ̄ no one of whic h would ne c e ssa

rily have b e e n suffic ie n t by

itse lf
 ̄ to c onc lude tha

t the
c ouple ha d not m e t the ir burde n for a sy lum . This a m biguity in the B IA’ s opinion pre v e n ts the gove rnm e n t from m e e ting its burden

to show “with c la

rity an d
c e rta inty what wa s de te rm i ne d by

the prior judgm e nt.” Hy dranautic s v . FilmTe c C orp. , 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th C ir. 2000). 6. The distric t c ourt a

warde d fe e s unde r the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t be c a use it found tha

t the gove rnm e nt ha d a c te d a nd litiga t e d in ba d fa ith. 28
5U.S.C . § 2412(b). Thethre shold for ba d fa ith is high; it re quire s m ore tha n quotidia n sha rp-e l bowe d

litiga t ion. B row n v . Sullivan , 916 F. 2d 492, 495 (9th C ir. 1990). De spite this stric t sta nda rd, distric t c ourts “ hav e broa d fa c t -finding powe rs in [the are a

of sa nc tions] to whic h a

ppe lla te c ourts m

ust a c c ord gre at de fe re nc e .” Tow nse nd v . Holman C

onsulting C

orp. , 929 F.2d 1358, 1366 (9th C ir. 1990) (e n ba nc ). W e re vie w for c le ar e rror a nd re ve rsa l is a

ppropria te only if the finding is

“ (1) illogic a l, (2) im

pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re n c e s tha t m a y be draw n from

the fa c t s in the re c ord.” Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita t ion om itte d). The distric t c ourt found four spe c ific insta n c e s of ba d fa ith, thee a

rlie st one on June 8, 2000. It then c onc lude d tha t, unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the s e e pisode s re ve a le d a

patte rn of ba d fa i th a ffe c ting a ll a spe c ts of the litiga tion sta rting a fte r June 8, 2000. B e c a use we re ve rse one of the spe c i fic ba d fa ith findings, wefa c e a

situa t ion ide ntic a l to tha

t in Rodrigue

z v . Unite d State s , 542 F.3d 704, 713 (9th C ir. 2008). As in tha t c a se , we va c ate and re m and so tha t the distric t c o urt “ m ay

c onside r what, if a

ny , m odific at ion of the fe e award is
a ppropria te in light of this opinion.” Id
. A. An attorne y

a c ts in ba d fa ith if he knowingly or re c k le ssly

brings a frivolous a

rgum e nt. Se e In re K

e e gan Mgmt. C

o. , 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th C ir. 1996). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly ide ntifie d this sta

nda rd be fore finding tha

t the 6gove rnm e nt’ s oft re pe a te d a rgum e nt tha

t Ha o ha d c o nse nte d to Powe ll’ s tortious
c onduc t c onstitute d ba d fa ith. The distric t c ourt c o nc lude d tha t the argum e nt, to the e xte nt tha

t it inc lude d c onse nt to ba tte ry , wa s “ m e ritle ss a

nd offe nsive .” W e
a gre e . While the gove rnm e nt’ s c onse nt a rgum e nt doe s not c om

pe l a finding of ba d fa ith, suc h a

finding wa s not illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in the
re c o rd. It wa s not c le ar e rror. B . The distric t c ourt found tha t the gove rnm e nt a

rgue d in ba d fa i th tha

t the inte ntiona l tort e xc e ption ba rre d Pla intiffs’ c la im s in spite of our first opinion. Eve n unde r c le ar e rror, we m ust re v e rse this finding. W he ne ve r the gove rnm e nt pre s e nte d a

n inte ntiona l tort e xc e ption-ba se d the ory , it provide d a non-frivolous
way to re c onc ile the argum e nt with our pre vious de c ision. M ore ove r, it wa s prope r for the gove rnm e nt to use the inte ntiona l tort e xc e ption to c ounte r Pla intiffs’ c la im that the y c ould re c ove r for the tota lity of Powe ll’ s c o nduc t be c a use his ba tte ry ha d be e n pa rt a nd pa rc e l of a “ via

ble ” tort. B a d fa ith ha s a

high thre shold a

nd the distric t c o urt’ s finding of it he re is without support in the re c ord. C. A c ourt m ay

c onside r the gove rnm e nt’ s pre litiga t ion a c tions in a sse ssing ba d fa ith. Se e Rodrigue

z , 542 F.3d a

t 712. Thedistric t c ourt found tha t the OIG
a ge nt running the

sting ha d told Ha o tha

t he would be watc hing thelive vide o from the a pa rtm e nt ne xt door a

nd prom ise d to prote c t he r if Powe ll touc h e d he r. 2013

7W L 4007770 a t ¶ 33. The a ge nt, howe ve r, did not interve ne whe n Powe ll forc e fully spa nke d he r. The distric t c ourt found thea ge nt’ s fa ilure to ke e p his prom ise w a s in ba d fa i th. Although we m ight we ll ha

ve c om e to a

diffe re n t
c onc lusion on de

novo re vie w, the a ge nt’ s a c tions c ould re a sona bly be se e n a s showing a

bla ta nt disre ga rd for Ha o’ s we ll-be ing. W e c annot sa y tha t this finding of ba d fa ith is c le arly

e rrone ous. D. The distric t

c ourt found tha

t the gove rnm e n t’ s fa ilure to proc e ss Ha o’ s
a sy lum c la im

until a fte r Powe ll’ s c rim ina l tria l e nde d, de spite hav ing c le ar proof of his c orruption, showe d ba d fa ith. This c hoic e to wa i t unne c e ssa rily e x te nde d Ha o’ s se p ara tion from he r husba nd a nd y oung son by

five e x tra

y e a rs. The gove rnm e nt ha s not e ve n hy pothe siz e d a le g itim ate re a son for the de la y . 2 The distric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in finding ba d fa ith. Aga in, be c a

use we re ve rse one of the spe c ific findings of ba d fa ith, we follow R odrigue

z and va c a te an d re m and the fe e award to a llow thedistric t c ourt to

2 The gove rnm e nt note s tha t the c a se at ba

r wa s sta y e d pe n ding Powe ll’ s c rim ina l tria l. Tha

t is e ntire ly

diffe re nt. The c urre n t litiga tion is a bout Powe ll’ s c onduc t a nd the issue s a

rising in this c a se an d in the c rim ina l tria l ove rla p signific antly
. Ha o’ s a sy lum he aring by

c ontra s t ha d

littleor no sha

re d substa nc e with thec rim ina l tria l. The distric t c ourt’ s finding, howeve r, tha t the la s t two y e ars of de la y are a lso a

ttributa ble t o ba d fa ith wa s c le ar e rror. As disc usse d a bove , this de la y oc c urre d in the ordina

ry c ourse of proc e ssing Ha o ’ s c la i m onc e it re sum e d in 2005. 8de c ide what, if a ny , c ha nge s should bem a de to the award of fe e s inc urre d a fte r June 8, 2000. 3 Se e Rodrigue z , 542 F.3d a

t 713. 7. In c onc lusion, the aw ard of da m a ge s is AFFIR

M ED. W e VAC ATE a

n d R EM A ND the fe e award for re c onside ra tion of theam ount. C osts a re awarde d to Appe l le e s. AFFIRM E D IN PART , V A C AT E D IN PART .

3 The $4,113 of fe e s a

warde d for work prior to June 8, 2000 m

ust a lso be va c a te d. The distric t c ourt a warde d the se fe e s pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(2)(A), whic h doe s not a pply to tort a c tions. Se e 28 U.S.C
. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 9