N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KIM B E RLY LUONG; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. C ITY AND C OUNTY OF SAN FR ANC ISC O POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16305 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05661-M EJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M aria -Ele n a

Ja m e s, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 *** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W ALLAC E, SILVER M AN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Kim be rly Luong a nd Vic ky Luong a p pe a l from

the jury ve rdic t in the ir 42 

# FIL ED N OV 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT 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. ** The pa

rtie s c onse n te d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging e xc e ssive forc e c l a im s a ga inst va rious offic e rs of the San Franc isc o Polic e De pa rtm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Pla i ntiff Kim be rly Luong’ s unla

wful a rre st a nd Pla intiff Vic k

y and Kim be rly Luong’ s se izure c la im s be c a use Pla intiffs fa ile d

to a ra ise ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda n ts ha d proba

b le c a use to se iz e the vide o c a

m e ra , give n tha

t the offic e rs we re working a s a

te am and c olle c tive ly

posse sse d knowle dge tha t the c am e ra

wa s pote ntia l e v ide n c e , a

n d whe t he r de fe nda

nts ha d proba

ble c a use to a rre st Pla intiffs unde r C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode § 148(a )(1) for obstruc ting de fe nda nts in the pe rform a nc e of the ir dutie s at the c rim e sc e ne . Se e He ine mann v . Satte rbe rg , 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th C ir. 2013) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re v ie w ); se e also Rile y v . C alifornia , 134 S. C t. 2473, 2494 (2014) (expla ining a “ we ll-re c o gniz e d e xc e ption” to this wa

rrant re quire m e nt of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt is tha t the

“ e x ige nc ie s of the situa

tion m ake the ne e ds of la

we n forc e m e n t so c om

pe lling tha

t [a ] wa rrantle ss . . . [se iz ure ] is obje c tive ly re a sona ble unde r the Fourth Am e ndm e nt” ); Unite d

State s v . Ramire

z , 473 F.3d 1026, 1032-33 (9th C ir. 2007) (e xpla ining this c ourt ha s a pplie d the c olle c tive knowle dge doc trine “ re ga rdle ss of whe the r [any ] inform ation [giving rise to proba ble c a use ] wa s a c tua lly 1 3 - 1 6 3 0 5 2c om

m unic ate d to” the offic e r pe rform ing the arre st; sugge sting, but not re quiring, c om m unic ation a

m ong offic e rs a s a

wa y to distinguish whic

h offic e rs a

re pa rt of a n inve stiga tion, a nd whic h a

re not); se e also C a l. Pe n . C ode § 148(a )(1) (m aking a viola tion e ve ry pe rson who “willfully

re sists, de la

y s, or obstruc ts a

ny . . . pe a c e offic e r . . . in the

disc ha rge or atte m

pt to disc h arge any

duty of his or he r offic e or e m ploy m e nt” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Pla i ntiffs’ ora l re que s t for le ave to a

m e nd the ir c om

pla int to a dd a

First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im be c a use Pla i ntiffs unduly

de la y e d in se e king a

m e ndm e nt so c lose to the tria l date and De fe nda

n ts would ha

ve be e n pre

judic e d ha d le ave to a

m e n d be e n gra

nte d. Se e Hall v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 697 F.3d 1059, 1079 (9th C i r. 2012) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w); se e also J

ohnson v . Buc k

le y , 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xpla ining tha

t a distric t c ourt ta

ke s into a c c ount fivefa c t ors in de te rm ining whe the r to gra

n t le ave to a

m e nd: “ba d fa ith, unduede la y , pre judic e to the opposing pa rty , futility

of am e ndm e nt, a

nd whe the r the pla intiff ha s pre viously am e nde d the c om pla i nt” ). De spite what Pla intiffs c onte nd, the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in its va rious in lim

ine rulings. Se e Unite d State s v . Dorse y , 677 F.3d 944, 951 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w for in limine rulings). Evidenc e of

1 3 - 1 6 3 0 5 3the s ta

b bing wa s re le va

nt to thejury ’ s unde rsta

n d ing of thesignific anc e of the c am e ra a s e vide nc e , and wa s not unduly pre judic ia l give n tha

t the vide o c a

m e ra itse lf ha d foota ge of e vide n c e re late d to thesta bbing, e .g. a

ja c k e t with blood soa k ing in thebathtub. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 401, 402, 403. Additiona lly , the distric t c ourt prope rly e x c lude d e vide nc e of othe r c i tiz e n c om pla i nts, inve stiga

tion, a nd findings a s im

pe rm issiblec ha

ra c te r e vide n c e a s Pla intiffs fa ile d to proffe r a prope r grounds for its adm issibility . Se e Fe d . R . Evid. 404(a). The distric t c ourt prope rly e xc lude d the polic e re port a s ina dm issiblehe arsa y , se e Fe d. R . Evid. 801, a nd the volum inous polic e tra ining m ate ria ls a s ne e dle ssly c um ulative sinc e Pla intiffs ha d a lre a dy re a d

substa ntia l p o rtions of them ate ria ls into the re c ord, se e Fe d. R . Evid. 403. La stly , the distric t c ourt prope rly e xc lude d te stim o ny

a bout theuse of polic e forc e logs sinc e Pla i ntiffs fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t the s e forc e logs we re a pplic a ble in this c a se and thus the forc e logs we re irre le va n t. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 402. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in its instruc tion to the

jury , and its re je c tion of Pla intiffs’ num e rous propose d jury instruc tions. Se e Unite d State s v . Hofus , 598 F.3d 1171, 1174 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c o urt prope rly instruc t e d the jury

tha t the se izure of the c am e ra wa s not a

n issue at tria l a nd tha t the offic e rs ha d a

uthority to se iz e the 1 3 - 1 6 3 0 5 4c am e ra . W ithout the instruc tion, thejury

would ha ve be e n c onfuse d or m isle d into be lie ving tha

t the s e issue s we re not re solve d. The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly instruc te d the jury

to c onside r Pla intiffs’ re sista nc e to the polic e ’ s atte m

pts to se iz e e vide nc e be c a

use the M ode l Instruc tions only m e ntione d the Pla i ntiffs’ re sista nc e to a rre st. To the e xte nt tha

t Pla intiffs suffic ie n tly

ra ise d this issue on a ppe a l, the distric t c o urt did not err in gra nting De fe nda

n ts’ m otion for judgme nt a s a m atte r of la w at the c lose of e vide nc e be c a use Pla intiffs e ithe r fa ile d to show pe rsona l pa rtic i pation, or a c tiona

ble c onduc t on the pa

rt of Offic e rs C iuda d, M oriy am a and C he a a s to c e rta i n e xc e ssive forc e c la im s brought by Pla intiffs. Se e Torre

s v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 548 F.3d 1197, 1205-06 (9th C i r. 2008) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w); se e also Lac e

y v . Maric opa C

ounty , 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ) (lia bility for viola tion of a c onstitutiona

l right re quire s de fe nda

nts’ pe rsona l pa

rtic ipation in the

viola tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Pla i ntiffs’ m otion for ne w tria l be c a

use the jury

ve rdic t wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . Se e K odev . C arlson , 596 F.3d 608, 611 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w); Mue lle r v . Auk

e r , 700 F.3d 1180, 1193-94 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a

m otion for a

ne w tria l is re ve rsible only if the re c ord c onta ins no 1 3 - 1 6 3 0 5 5e vide nc e in support of the ve rdic t or if the distric t

c o urt m a de a

m ista ke of la w.” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). Spe c ific a l ly , the undispute d e vide nc e shows tha

t Vic ky and Kim be rly re fuse d to ha

nd ove r the c am e ra to de fe nda n ts, whe n a ske d , and pre ve nte d the offic e rs from

obta ining the c am e ra , whic h the de fe nda

nts ha d a la wful right to se iz e . The e vide nc e furthe r shows tha t Kim be rly and Vic ky

we re re sisting a

rre st, prom

pting de fe n da

nts to useforc e to subdue the m . The re wa s no e vide nc e pre s e nte d tha t the offic e rs use d m ore forc e tha n what wa s ne e de d. Nor did the e v ide nc e support Kim

be rly ’ s or Vic ky ’ s a c c ount of theforc e use d to a rre st the m . Pla intiffs’ argum e nts to thec ontra ry re s t m a inly on a c re dibility

de te rm ination, whic h is not re vie wa ble on a ppe a l. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

warding c osts a ga inst Pla i ntiffs be c a

use the c ost a

ward wa s m o de st, Pla i ntiffs’ c a s e did not pre se nt issue s of substa ntia l public im

porta nc e , a nd Pla intiffs did not de

m onstra t e tha t the y c ould not othe rwise pa

y the c osts if subje c te d to a pa ym e nt pla n. Se e Martin v . C

al. De p’t. of Ve te ran Affairs , 560 F.3d 1042, 1053 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w); c

f . Esc riba v . Foste r Poultry Farms, Inc ., 743 F.3d 1236, 1248-49 (9th C ir. 2014) (no a buse of disc re tion in deny ing re lative l y m ode st c ost award whe n, a

m ong othe r things, plaintiff ha d lim ite d fina n c i a l re sourc e s, the c a se pre s e nt issue s of substa

ntia l im porta nc e re g a rding FM LA notic e , a

n d c hilling 1 3 - 1 6 3 0 5 6e ffe c t on future FM LA a c tions).

Sinc e Pla intiffs did not de m onstra t e any c onstitutiona

l viola tions, Pla intiffs’ argum e nts re ga

rding thedism issa l of its sta t e la w c la im unde r C a l . C iv. C ode § 52.1 a re m o ot. Sinc e Pla i ntiffs did not raise any argum e nts c onc e rning the fa lse arre st of Vic ky in the i r Ope ning B rie f, we de e m tha t issuewa ive d on a

ppe a l. Se e C

ruz v . Int’l C olle c tion C

orp ., 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th C ir.2012) (“ W e re v ie w only issue s whic h a re argue d spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

in a pa rty 's ope ning brie f.” (c i tation and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 3 0 5 7K

imbe rly Luong e t al. v . C

ity & C o unty of San Franc isc o e t al. , 13-16305 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the portion of the

c ourt’ s disposition affirm ing sum m ary judgm e nt a s to theLuongs’ unla wful a rre st a nd se izure c l a im s. Our c irc uit ha s only

a pplie d the c olle c tive knowle dge doc trine whe re the re ha s be e n som e c om m unic at ion be twe e n offic e rs working toge t he r on a n inve stiga

t ion. Unite d State s v . Ramire

z , 473 F.3d 1026, 1032 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [W ] e hav e be e n willing to a

ggre gate the fa c ts known to e a c h of the offic e rs involve d at le a st whe n the re ha s be e n

c om m unic ation a

m ong a g e nts.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks, a lte ra tions, a

nd c ita t ions omitte d)). He re the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly ide ntifie d tha

t the re wa s a

tria ble issue of fa c t c onc e rning whe the r the offic e rs who sa w the c am e ra be ing use d insidethe hom e c om m unic ate d with theoffic e rs who se iz e d the c am e ra and a

rre ste d the Luongs. Thedistric t

c o urt wa s unde r the im

pre ssion tha

t this issue of fa c t did not pre ve nt the e ntry of sum m ary judgm e n t be c a

use it re a d Ramire z to pe rm it a

p plic ation of thec olle c tive knowle dge doc trine whe the r the re ha d be e n c om

m unic ation or not. B e c a

use tha t ruling repre se n ts a

n e xpa nsion of the d oc trine tha

t our c o urt ha s ne ve r e ndorse d, I would re ve rse this portion of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED N OV 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS