N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YOUNG HAN, individua lly and a s suc c e s sor-in-inte re st to de c e de nt Joseph Han; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. C ITY OF FOLSOM , a

m unic ipa l c orporation; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16078 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00633-M C E-GGH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 21, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge , a nd B AYLSON, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
M AY30 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l M . B ay lson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva nia , sitting by

de s igna tion.This c a se re turns to us a fte r a prior re m and. Pla intiffs Young, Na m , a nd David Ha n (c olle c tive ly , “ the Ha

ns” ) brought fe de ra l c la im s a nd sta t e wrongful de ath a nd ne g lige nt inflic tion of e m otion distre s s c la i m s a ga inst theC ity of Folsom , the C h ie f of Polic e , and Offic e rs B arbe r, Pe te rson, a nd Proc iw (c olle c tive ly , “ the C ity ” ) for the shooting de ath of Josep h Ha n . The distric t c ourt gran te d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to theC ity

on a ll c la im s. The Ha

ns a ppe a le d. A thre e judge pa n e l of this C o urt a ffirm e d the dism issa l of the fe de ra l c la im s, but re ve rse d the d ism issa l of the sta

te la w wrongful de ath a

nd ne glige n t

inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s c la im s, a

nd re m a nde d for furthe r proc e e dings in light of the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion in Hay e s v . C o unty of San Die

go , 305 P.3d 252 (C a l. 2013). Han v . C

ity of Folsom , 51 Fe d. App’ x 923 (9th C ir. 2014). On re m and, the distric t c o urt gra

n te d sum m ary judgm e nt on thesta te la w c la im s, a

nd this a ppe a l followe d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse and
re m and. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s of this c a se , we ne e d not
re c o unt the m

he re . I The C ity c onte nds tha

t it wa s e ntitle d to sum

m ary judgm e nt be c a

use the polic e offic e rs owe d no duty to Joseph Ha

n a nd, the re fore , his ne glige nc e c la im s
m ust fa il. The C ity is inc o rre c t. Unde r C a lifornia la w, public e m

ploy e e s “ are
2sta

tutorily lia ble to the sa

m e e xte nt a s priva

te pe rsons for injurie s c a

use d by the ir
a c ts or om issions, subje c t to thesa m e de fe nse s a

v a ila ble to priva

te pe rsons.” Hay e s , 305 P.3d a

t 255; se e also C a l. Gov. C ode § 820. In a ddition, “ public
e ntitie s a re ge ne ra l ly

lia ble for injurie s c a

u se d by the ne glige nc e of the ir e m ploy e e s
a c ting within the

sc ope of the i r e m

ploy m e nt.” Id. ; se e also C a l. Gov. C o de § 815.2. C a lifornia

a pplie s the fam ilia

r c o m m on la we le m e nts of thetort of
ne glige nc e : a

duty to use c are , a

bre a c h of tha

t duty , a nd a re quire m e n t tha

t the bre a c h wa s the proxim ate or le ga l c a use of the re sulting injury
. Id. C a lifornia a lso

“ ha s long re c ogniz e d tha

t pe a c e offic e rs ha

v e a duty to a c t re a sona

bly whe n using de a dly forc e .” Id. at 256. “ The re a sona b le ne ss of a

n offic e r’ s c onduc t is de te rm i ne d in light of the tota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s .” Id. In polic e c a se s, a s
we ll a s othe rs, the c o nduc t in que stion “ m u st a l way s be ga

uge d in re lation to a ll the othe r m at e ria l c irc um sta

n c e s surrounding it a

nd if suc h othe r c i rc um sta nc e s a dm it of a re a sona b le doubt a s to whe the r suc h que stione d c onduc t fa lls within or without the b ounds of ordina

ry c are suc h doubt m

ust be re s olve d a s a

m atte r of fa c t rathe r tha n of la w.” Grudt v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 468 P.2d 825, 831 (C a l. 1970) (quoting Tosc hi v . C

hristian , 149 P.2d 848, 852 (C a l. 1944)). In Hay e s , the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt he ld tha

t a n offic e r’ s “ t a c tic a l
c onduc t a nd de c i sions pre c e ding theuse of de a dly forc e are re le va

nt c onside ra tions
3unde r C a lifornia la w in de t e rm i ning whe the r the use of de a dly forc e give s rise to
ne glige nc e lia

bility .” Hay e

s , 305 P.3d a

t 263. As the

C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt
sum m ariz e d, “p e a c e offic e rs ha ve a duty to a c t re a sona

bly whe n using de a dly forc e , a duty tha t e xte nds to thetota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s surrounding the shooting, inc luding theoffic e rs’ pre shooting c onduc t.” Id. at 262. In a sse ssing the sta nda rd of c are , “ [i] t is unive rsa lly a c c e pte d tha

t the sta nda rd of c a re in a pa rtic u la r industry m a y be e sta blishe d by

its pra c titione rs.” C

ty . of Mariposa v

. Yose miteW

. Assoc s. , 202 C a l .App.3d 791, 806 (C t. App. 1988); se e also Grudt , 468 P.2d a

t 831 (e rror not to a dm it polic e ta c tic a l m anua l a s e vide n c e of sta nda rd of c are ). In short, C a lifornia

re c ogniz e s tha

t pe a c e offic e rs ha

ve a duty to a c t
re a s ona bly whe n using de a dly

forc e , a nd re a sona

ble ne ss is de te rm ine d in light of the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s, inc luding c onside ra tion of ta c tic a l a nd pre

shooting a c tions. II Give n the e x iste n c e of a

duty unde r C a lifornia

ne g lige nc e la

w, a nd following Hay e

s ’ guida nc e tha t we m ust c o nside r the re a sona

ble ne ss of the

4offic e r’ s a c tions unde r the tota lity of the c i rc um sta

nc e s, the que stion the n is whe the r the re are tria

ble issue s of m ate ria l fa c t tha t pre c lude sum

m a ry judgm e nt. 1 In this c a se , Ha

n te nde re d

e xpe rt e vide nc e that the polic e a c tions we re not
re a s ona ble unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s unde r ge ne ra lly

a c c e pte d polic e pra c tic e s. The e xpe rt opine d tha t e ve n though theOffic e rs we re wa rne d in a dva

nc e that Jose p h wa s a c ting stra

nge ly , tha t he wa s in posse ssion of a hunting knife , a

nd that his fa m ily wa s c onc e rne d a

bout his we l l-be i ng a

nd his poten tia l re a c t ion to polic e pre se nc e , “ the offic e rs fa ile d to use re a sona ble and ge ne ra lly a c c e pte d polic e pra c tic e s for de a ling with som e one the y be lie ve d wa s a

pe rson of diminishe d
c a pa c ity .” He furthe r opine d, a m o ng othe r m atte rs, tha

t the offic e rs m a d e
c onsc i ous c hoic e s tha

t unre a sona

bly e sc a l ate d the situa

tion; tha t the use of de a dly forc e wa s c ontra

ry to ge ne ra lly

a c c e pte d polic e pra c tic e s; a nd tha t the C ity m a de a

1 W e m ust re j e c t the C ity ’ s a sse rtion, without le ga l support, tha t we are lim ite d to re vie wing only those fa c ts se t

forth in the pre vious pa

ne l ’ s m e m orandum disposition a

nd thosefa c ts sum

m ariz e d by

the distric t c ourt in its se c o nd sum m ary judgm e nt orde r. Our re m and in Han v . C ity of Folsom , 51 Fe d. App’ x 923 (9th C ir. 2014), did not a

l te r or lim i t the re c o rd be fore the distric t c ourt, a nd we c onduc t a de nov o re vie w of the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt orde r, J

ame s Riv e r Ins. C o. v . He be rt Sc he nk

, P.C ., 523 F.3d 915, 920 (9th C ir. 2008), whic h re quire s c onside ra tion of thefull re c ord, not just the fa c ts a s sum

m a riz e d by the distric t c ourt. And, in re vie wing a grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt, a

n a ppe lla te c ourt “ m ay e xam ine the re c ord

denov o without re ly ing on the lowe r c ourts’ unde rsta nding.” Eastman K

odak C o. v . Image Te c h. Se rv

s., Inc

. , 504 U.S. 451, 466 n.10 (1992). W e the re fore re vie w the full re c ord a s de ve lope d be fore the distric t c ourt.
5c onsc i ous c hoic e not to provide fie ld offic e rs with prope r ta c tic a l tools a nd de c ision m a

king te c hnique s. He te stifie d tha t “ [t] he s e de c isions a

nd unre a s ona

ble
a c tions c re ate d the subse que nt de a dly forc e inc ide nt tha

t re sulte d in Joseph Ha

n’ s de ath.” The re c ord a lso disc lose s ge n uine dispute s a s to m ate ria l fa c ts, suc h a s whe the r the be droom door wa s ope n or c lose d whe n the offic e rs a pproa c he d it, whe the r the offic e rs provide d a wa rning, whe the r the y sa

w the knife , a

nd the position of the vic tim

whe n he wa s shot. “ C re dibility de te rm inat ions, thewe ighing of the e vide nc e , a

nd the draw ing of le gitim ate infe re nc e s from the fa c ts a

re jury func tions, not those

of a judge
. ” Ande rson v . Libe rty Lobby , Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Eve n ta king only t

he undispute d fa c ts into c onside ra tion, the c irc um sta nc e s in this c a se be ar a strong re s e m bla nc e to the situa

tion in Hay e

s , whic h a lso involve d the fa ta l shooting of a knife -wie lding individua l. Give n a ll of the se c onside ra tions, thee ntry of sum m ary judgm e nt wa s ina p propria te in this c a se .

RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

6