1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELLY J. RICHARDSON, and JAMES

POWELL, personally and as next friend for

I.R., a minor, and S.P., a minor, 

No 3:14-cv-01027-ST

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

EMILIE SCHUBERT, in her individual 

capacity, GINGER VAN WINKLE, in 

her individual capacity, ERIN WIRTZ, 

in her individual capacity, JENNIE SMITH, 

in her individual capacity, KRISTIN LEMON,

in her individual capacity, CARLOS CRUTCH,

in his individual capacity, LINDSEY VERNOOY, 

in her individual capacity, DANIELLE SANTILI-DAY, 

in her individual capacity, 

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [112] on October 30, 

2015, in which she recommends that this Court deny in part and grant in part the motion for 

summary judgment filed by Defendants Emilie Christman (formerly Schubert) and Ginger Van 

Case 3:14-cv-01027-YY Document 127 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 4
2 - ORDER

Winkle, (collectively, “Arizona Defendants”). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, 

the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Plaintiffs object to Judge Stewart’s conclusion that Arizona Defendants are entitled to 

absolute immunity for any actions they took after they received an Oregon court order giving 

custody of minor I.R. to the Oregon State Department of Human Services (ODHS). According to 

Plaintiffs, an Oregon court order does not have efficacy in Arizona until an Arizona court orders 

the Arizona employees to comply with the Oregon order. Because Arizona Defendants did not 

receive any such order from an Arizona court, Plaintiffs argue that Arizona Defendants are not 

entitled to absolute immunity for complying with the Oregon court order.

Plaintiffs’ argument focuses on the fact that there were procedural events that the Arizona 

Defendants had to accomplish prior to complying with the Oregon order. Notably, Plaintiffs do 

not dispute that the Oregon order was facially valid nor do Plaintiffs dispute that the Oregon 

court had the ability to enter a protective custody order.1 Nor do Plaintiffs offer any argument to 

refute the settled law that employees, such as the child safety workers in this case, are accorded 

absolute quasi-judicial immunity from liability for damages stemming from executing a facially 

valid court order. See Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., State of Wash., 834 F.2d 758, 

 1 There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ODHS workers made false statements and/or 

material omissions to the Oregon court in support of ODHS’ request for protective custody of I.R. See

Findings & Recommendation, June 5, 2015, ECF 84 at 13. However, that issue goes to whether the 

ODHS workers are entitled to immunity for their actions, not to whether the order, once issued, was valid.

Case 3:14-cv-01027-YY Document 127 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 4
3 - ORDER

765 (9th Cir. 1987). As the Ninth Circuit has explained: “The rationale for immunizing persons 

who execute court orders is apparent. Such persons are themselves ‘integral parts of the judicial 

process.’” Id. (quoting Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983). “The fearless and 

unhesitating execution of court orders is essential if the court's authority and ability to function 

are to remain uncompromised.” Id.

Plaintiffs suggest that Arizona Defendants acted in bad faith to “create[] a situation in 

which the Oregon defendants’ falsehoods would not easily be discovered and thereby be 

successful to obtain the Oregon court order.” Pl.’s Obj. 4, ECF 114. However, Judge Stewart 

cites Arizona Defendants’ declarations, which Plaintiffs do not contest, stating that ODHS 

worker Erin Wirtz decided to seek an order from the Oregon court to take temporary custody of 

I.R. and, until June 27, 2012, Arizona Defendants had no knowledge that Wirtz had succeeded in 

obtaining the court order. At the point when ODHS arrived in Arizona with the Oregon court 

order, Arizona Defendants merely obeyed the valid court order and, therefore, they are entitled to 

the normal degree of quasi-judicial immunity.

Plaintiffs are not without remedy, however. Judge Stewart denied Arizona Defendants’ 

request for immunity for any actions taken prior to June 27, 2012, the date on which ODHS 

arrived in Arizona and Arizona Defendants became aware of the Oregon court order. Therefore, 

Plaintiffs will have an opportunity at trial to allege that Arizona Defendants acted in bad faith 

prior to their compliance with the Oregon court order. 

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs’ objections and concludes there is no basis 

to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court also reviewed the pertinent portions of 

the record de novo and finds no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation. 

Case 3:14-cv-01027-YY Document 127 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 4
4 - ORDER

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings & Recommendation [112].

Accordingly, Arizona Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [95] is granted as to the 

claims against Arizona Defendants after receipt of the Oregon court order on June 27, 2012, and 

is otherwise denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this __________ day of ___________________ , 2015.

____________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01027-YY Document 127 Filed 12/28/15 Page 4 of 4