Cotti v. California Department of Human Services Director

Background

Alice Cotti and Vladimir Serdyukov brought the case after police responded to a domestic-disturbance report at their home on May 23, 2017. Both plaintiffs were arrested for domestic violence, and social workers Jeff Johnson and Phu Nguyen took custody of their two children. The plaintiffs alleged that they had arranged for a licensed childcare provider to care for the children and that the children’s removal lacked adequate cause. They also challenged statements in dependency reports concerning domestic violence, marijuana use, and a possible fracture to one child’s leg.

The operative third amended complaint asserted a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims concerning the children’s removal, alleged deception of the dependency court, and due process. It also asserted a California legal-malpractice claim. Most of the 24 originally named defendants had already been dismissed. The remaining defendants were Francesca LeRue, Pa Chang, Jeff Johnson, and Phu Nguyen.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief

The plaintiffs asked the court to set aside earlier dismissal orders, allow a fourth amended complaint, appoint counsel, restore defendants dismissed for lack of service, seal documents containing their full names, and allow future filings under pseudonyms.

The court denied the motion in its entirety. It declined to revisit earlier dismissals, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown a legal basis for relief and had previously raised similar arguments. It denied leave to file a fourth amended complaint because the plaintiffs did not provide the proposed complaint required by the local rules. It denied appointment of counsel because the plaintiffs did not qualify as indigent under the cited statute and because the action was subject to dismissal. It also denied the request to restore unserved defendants, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause or a factual or legal basis to vacate the prior dismissal.

The court denied the requests to seal documents and use pseudonyms because the plaintiffs had not identified particular documents or shown the required reasons for restricting public access or concealing their names.

Motion to Dismiss

The remaining defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short, plain, and understandable statement of the claim. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Francesca LeRue

LeRue was identified as the director of the county family-services department and as a supervisor with authority over social workers. The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing her personal involvement in the children’s removal or a sufficient connection between her policies, training, or supervision and the alleged constitutional violations. The motion to dismiss was granted as to LeRue.

Pa Chang

Chang was alleged to have approved dependency reports prepared by another social worker and to have failed to supervise or train employees. The court found no facts connecting her alleged supervisory conduct to the children’s removal. It also found that the due-process claim did not allege that Chang was responsible for notice of the dependency proceedings.

The plaintiffs’ remaining potentially viable claim against Chang alleged judicial deception. The court explained that such a claim requires facts showing a substantial deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth and that the challenged action would not have occurred without the dishonesty. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege that the statements in the dependency reports were deliberately false or reckless, or that Chang knew of any falsity or recklessly disregarded the truth. The motion to dismiss was granted as to Chang.

Jeff Johnson and Phu Nguyen

Johnson and Nguyen were the social workers who responded to the plaintiffs’ home and took custody of the children. The court understood the plaintiffs’ claim as alleging interference with their constitutional right to familial association.

The court held that officials may take custody of children without prior court authorization when they have information establishing reasonable cause to believe the child faces imminent danger of serious bodily injury and the intrusion is reasonably necessary to prevent that injury. According to the complaint, Johnson and Nguyen knew that both parents had been taken into police custody after domestic violence and therefore could not care for the children. Because the children were too young to care for themselves, the court concluded that the alleged facts did not show a constitutional violation when the social workers placed the children in county care rather than with the proposed caregivers.

The court also held that Johnson and Nguyen were entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. The plaintiffs had not identified controlling precedent clearly establishing that, in the specific circumstances alleged, social workers had to leave the children with a third-party caregiver rather than take them into protective custody.

The court denied the motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity because the complaint did not make clear whether Johnson and Nguyen performed investigative or administrative functions, which generally are not protected by absolute immunity. Even so, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to Johnson and Nguyen based on the insufficient allegations and qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court granted the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend. It dismissed the action with prejudice as to Rebekah Children’s Services, the City, the San Jose Police Department, Judge Patrick Tondreau, Amy Choi, Nicolas Arnold, the County, Francesca LeRue, Pa Chang, Jeff Johnson, and Phu Nguyen. It dismissed the action without prejudice as to Gaona, Avila, Tran, Family Legal Advocates, Dependency Advocacy Center, Wesley Schroeder, John Faulconer, Legal Advocates for Children and Youth, Sarah Gerhart, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Family and Child Services, the Social Security Agency, and Amy Guy. The plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief was denied.