Zilinskas v. The County of Monterey

Background

Richard Zilinskas and Mildred Zilinskas sued Monterey County, the City of Monterey, Detective Michael Garcia, and Deputy District Attorney Billie Gibson. The complaint arose from Richard’s arrest in October 2024 while he was entering the United States during a vacation with Mildred. He was arrested as a fugitive based on a Monterey County warrant, held in county jail for 13 days, and later had the criminal charges dismissed. The state court later formally found him innocent and exonerated him.

The complaint asserted four types of claims: malicious prosecution against Garcia and Gibson; judicial deception against Garcia; a claim under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act against all defendants; and loss of consortium against all defendants. The loss-of-consortium count included both a California state-law claim and Mildred’s federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a civil action for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly alleges a legally valid claim. The City defendants also moved to strike and dismiss claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, a law aimed at claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity.

County Defendants

Monterey County and Gibson moved to dismiss the Bane Act and loss-of-consortium claims. The court held that Gibson was immune under California Government Code section 821.6 because the claims arose from the initiation of a criminal proceeding. The County was also immune under section 815.2 because the employee was immune.

The court therefore granted the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the Bane Act and state-law loss-of-consortium claims against them. The conclusion states that these dismissals were with prejudice and without further leave to amend.

City Defendants’ Bane Act Motion

The City defendants and Garcia moved to dismiss and strike the Bane Act claim. The court held that the allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage. It had previously found that the complaint adequately alleged Garcia caused Richard to be unreasonably seized through judicial deception. The court concluded that Richard’s arrest supplied the required threat, intimidation, or coercion, and that the allegations that Garcia intended Richard’s arrest despite knowing he lacked probable cause showed the required specific intent or reckless disregard for constitutional rights.

The defendants also argued that government-immunity provisions protected Garcia and the City. The court rejected that argument, reasoning that submitting allegedly false testimony to obtain an arrest warrant was an operational act rather than a protected basic policy decision. The court denied the City defendants’ motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim and denied their anti-SLAPP motion to strike that claim.

State-Law Loss of Consortium

The court granted the City defendants’ motion to dismiss the state-law loss-of-consortium claim. It held that the claim arose from Richard’s arrest, which flowed from the initiation of criminal proceedings, and that Garcia was therefore immune under section 821.6. Because Garcia was immune, the City was also immune under section 815.2.

The court also granted the City defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state-law loss-of-consortium claim. It held that Garcia’s communications urging Gibson to seek an arrest warrant were protected communications connected to an official proceeding, and that the plaintiffs could not show a reasonable probability of success on the legally invalid claim. The conclusion states that dismissal and striking of the state-law loss-of-consortium claims were with prejudice and without further leave to amend.

Federal Spousal Family-Association Claim

The court denied the City defendants’ request to dismiss Mildred’s federal claim based on interference with spousal familial association. The court held that the constitutional right to familial association can encompass the relationship between spouses. It further held that the allegations that Garcia deliberately disregarded Richard’s rights, initiated criminal proceedings, and failed to correct his conduct before Richard’s arrest sufficiently alleged conduct that could violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of liberty without due process.

Garcia also asserted qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from liability when the law was not clearly established or the official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right. The court declined to decide that defense on the motion to dismiss because its resolution would depend in part on facts that required a more developed record.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pi granted the motions to dismiss the state-law loss-of-consortium claims against all defendants and granted the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim as to the County defendants. These dismissals were with prejudice and without further leave to amend. The court granted the City defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state-law loss-of-consortium claim. The court otherwise denied the motions to dismiss and the anti-SLAPP motion.