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

LYNNE KOR

FF, a s Sta tutory

Pla intiff a

nd surviving m othe r of Tim othy O’ B rie n de c e a s e d - on be h a lf of a ll Sta tutory Pla intiffs, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF PHOENIX, a m unic ipa lity ; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16020 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02317-ESW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Eile e n W ille tt, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding * * Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 18, 2017 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, W
. FLETC HER , a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
OCT 31 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for p ublic a tion a nd is not p re c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra t e judge
.The purpose of sum m a ry judgm e nt is to i de ntify whe the r m a te ria l fa c t que stions
e xist, not to re solve t

he m . In this 42 U.S.C
. § 1 983 c ivil rights a c tion, 1 the d istric t
c ourt gra nte d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on c la im s a rising out of a June 2012 c onfronta

tion be twe e n two Phoe nix polic e offic e rs a nd the la te Tim othy O’ B rie n a t a p u blic pa rk. Ac c ording to the offic e rs, O’ B rie n wa s wie ldin g a b ase ba ll b a t , a dva n c ing towa

rds the m , a nd disre g ar d i n g co m m a nds to stop a nd drop the ba t whe n the y fire d the ir
we a pons. O’ B rie n’ s m othe r, Ly nne K orff (“ Korff” ), c o n t en d s tha t he r son h a d droppe d the b a t a nd wa s n o l onge r a dva n c ing towa

rds the offic e rs whe n the fa ta l shots
we re f i r ed
. T a king the e vide nc e put forwa rd on O’ B rie n’ s be ha lf a nd, a s we m

u st,
m a king a ll infe re nc e s from t he re c ord e vide nc e in O’ B rie n’ s fa vor, we c onc lude tha t
a jury m ust re solve t

his c ritic a l fa c tua l dispute
. Se e Brac k e n v . Ok u ra , 869 F.3d 771, 778 (9th C ir. 2017) (c iting Ze t w ic k v . C ty
. of Yolo , 850 F.3d 436, 4 40 (9th C i r. 2017)). Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse a nd re m a nd. This fa c t ua l dispute is a lso c e ntra l to the offic e rs’ a sse rtion tha t the y a re e ntitle d to qu al i f i ed im m unity a nd Korff’ s sta

te la w ne g lige nc e c l a im a g a inst the C ity of Phoe nix. B e c a use nothing in the re c ord sugge sts tha t the m a gistra te judge c ould not fa irly
a nd c orre c tly a

pply the l a w on r em an d , w e de c l ine t he sugge stion tha t the c a se be

1 Korff a lso brings a

re la te d ne g lige nc e c la im

unde r Ariz ona

la w. 2a ssigne d to a diffe re nt j udge
. Ne ithe r our d e te rm ina tion tha t s um m a ry judgm e nt wa s
e rrone ously gra n t ed nor the p re se rva tion of the a ppe a ra nc e of j ustic e wa rra nts
re a s signm e nt on re m a nd. S e e W y le r Summit P’ship v . Turne r Broad. Sy

s., Inc

. , 235 F.3d 1184, 1196 (9th C ir. 2000). Our c onc lusions ne c e ssita te the va c a tur of the fe e a nd c ost a w a rd be low. 2 RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

2 For tha t re a son, Appe lle e s’ M o tion to Strike Korff’ s Am e n de d Notic e of Appe a l is de n ie d a s m oot. 3