1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Montiah Chatman, individually and on behalf 

of her two minor children, J.L.C. and 

E.V.T.P.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Marci D Ferrell, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-03826-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

At the close of Plaintiffs’ case, Defendants brought a motion pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 50 on the issue of punitive damages as to each defendant. The Court granted 

Defendants’ motion as to Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Ferrell but denied it as to Ms. Chrisman. 

The Court enters the instant order to elucidate the basis for its ruling. 

To justify a punitive damages award, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a 

preponderance of the evidence that each defendant’s conduct was malicious, oppressive,

or performed in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Presented with Defendants’ motion 

for a directed verdict on punitive damages, the Court must address whether the evidence in 

Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief provides a basis for including a punitive damages instruction for 

each defendant. The Court will address the motion as to each defendant, in turn. At oral 

argument on the Rule 50 motion, Plaintiffs conceded that the Court should grant the motion 

as to Mr. Sullivan. The motion is therefore granted as to him. 

Case 2:17-cv-03826-DLR Document 188 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Turning to Ms. Ferrell, at oral argument, Plaintiffs argued that Ms. Ferrell acted in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights when she informed Ms. Chatman of the 72-hourhearing-period and when she stated that she did not know the procedures to ensure the

children’s return. Plaintiffs have produced no evidence suggesting that this conduct was

malicious, oppressive, or done in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. No evidence in 

Plaintiffs’ case suggests that Ms. Ferrell knew or had any reason to know that the boys 

would not be returned within 72-hours; Plaintiffs also did not establish that Ms. Ferrell’s 

failure to inform Ms. Chatman of the process to resecure the children was done maliciously, 

oppressively, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Rather, Plaintiffs’ case 

establishes that Ms. Ferrell was acting at the direction of her supervisor. Ms. Ferrell cannot 

be liable for the actions of Ms. Chrisman. Moreover, the evidence shows that Ms. Ferrell 

delayed with the police for a substantial period prior to removing the children, only acting 

after receiving advice from Mr. Sullivan that indicated that removal was appropriate. In 

sum, Plaintiffs failed in their case-in-chief to present evidence supporting a finding of the 

requisite mental intent to justify a punitive damages instruction. The Court therefore grants 

Defendants’ motion as to Ms. Ferrell. 

Turning finally to the motion as to Ms. Chrisman, the evidence presented in 

Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief is sufficient to support a punitive damages instruction against her. 

Ms. Chrisman knew or should have known that federal law guarantees parents and children 

the right to live together without governmental interference and that government officials 

are required to obtain judicial authorization before removing children from their parent’s 

custody in the absence of exigent circumstances. Based on the evidence presented in 

Plaintiffs’ case, Ms. Chrisman would have had the training and knowledge to perceive the 

risk that her actions—authorizing and directing the removal of the children and failing to 

return the children within 72 hours or preventing the filing of a petition within 72 hours by 

sending them out of state—would violate Plaintiffs’ rights under federal law. Her actions 

in the face of the perceived risk of violating Plaintiffs’ rights under federal law warrant 

denial of the motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Ms. Chrisman. 

Case 2:17-cv-03826-DLR Document 188 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 50 motion is GRANTED as to Mr. 

Sullivan and Ms. Ferrell and DENIED as to Ms. Chrisman. 

Dated this 9th day of March, 2021.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-03826-DLR Document 188 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 3