NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELLEN KEAT E S ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL KOILE, individually as an employee with the State of Arizona Child Protective Services; and KIMBERLY PENDER, individually as an employee with the State of Arizona Child Protective Services , Defendants

- Appell ees. No. 20

- 160 15
D.C. No. 2:1 5

- cv - 01270

- NVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V . Wake , Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 4 , 2021 * * Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, ** *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

District Judge. Appellant Ellen Keat e s (“Keat e s”) appeals the District Court’s denial of her motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 after a jury rendered a
verdict in favor of A ppellees Michael Koile (“Koile”) and Kimberly Pender (“Pender”) , who were sued individually as employees of Arizona’s Child Protective Services (“CPS”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm. The following facts were established at trial. On May 20, 2013, Keat e s took
her thirteen

- year - old daughter A.K. to see a pediatrician. While being examined by Dr. Susan Stephens , A.K. disclosed that she “had attempted to hurt herself.” A t some point in time, Keat e s entered the examination room, and Dr. Stephens
became c oncerned about Keates’s behav ior because she discounted the possibility that A.K. would engage in self

- harm and spontaneously mentioned that A.K. had
been the victim of sexual abuse. Consequently, Dr. Stephens instructed Keates to take A.K. to the Phoenix Children’s Hospital to be eva luated by a psychiatrist. Dr. Stephens informed Keates that if A.K. was not checked in within thirty minutes,
she would contact CPS. At the hospital, Behavioral Health Crisis Counselor Randall Call (“Call”) concluded that it would be unsafe to release A.K. from the hospital after Keates initially refused to stay home with A.K. to make sure that she
did not harm herself. Call instead determined that A.K. should be transferred to an3

inpatient psychiatric environment as soon as a bed became available and cont acted
CPS.
T he next morning, May 21, 2013, Pender assigned Koile to investigate on
behalf of CPS. Upon arriving at the hospital, Koile spoke to A.K. and hospital
staff. Keates was not at the hospital. Koile attempted to contact Keat e s by phone several times without success. That same morning, a social worker told Koile that Aurora Behavioral Health (“Aurora”) would have a bed available for A.K. at 3 :00
P.M. that day

. At the time of these events, it took an average of five days to obtai n a warrant to take custody of a child. Koile t ook A.K. into custody and transfer red her to Aurora in the early afternoon without obtaining a warrant

. Keat e s then brought this action, claiming K oile and Pender violated her
constitutional rights when A.K. was seized without a warrant. 1 At trial, the jury
returned a verdict in Defendants’ favor. In doing so, it answered three interrogatories , finding that Koile and Pender (1) had “ reasonable cause to believe [A.K.] was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury within the time it would have taken to obtain a court order authorizing the removal, ” and (2) “ pursue [ d ] avenues of investigation that were reasonable considering all the circumstances,” and (3) that “the scope and degree of the interference with familial association

1 A.K. asserted claims in the initial complaint. Before trial, A.K. reached the age of majority and voluntarily withdrew her claims.4

[was] reasonably necessary to avert the imminent danger.” In denying the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, t he District
Court held that “the verdict and the jury interrogatories established both (1) that
Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and (2) that, if they did, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate law that was clearly established in the circumstances of this case. ”
We review the District Court’s den ial of a motion for judgment as matter of
law de novo

. See In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig. , 969 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2020). We ask whether the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “permits only one reasonab le conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s verdict.” Josephs v. Pac. Bell , 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006). We hold that the jury’s verdict that there was no constitutional violation was reasonable and supported by the record. Ample

e vidence supported a finding that the officials “ha[d] reasonable cause to believe that [a] child [was] likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant.” Rogers v. Cnty

. of San Joaquin , 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9t h Cir. 2007). Consequently, we need not address the issue of qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED
.