Holland v. City of San Francisco

Background

The court had previously granted summary judgment for the City of San Francisco and individual police officers. It also entered summary judgment for Allied Universal Security Services and its employee, Mark Hankins, on the remaining malicious-prosecution claim against them, even though the Allied defendants had not filed their own summary judgment motion or joined the other defendants’ motion.

The court based the judgment for all defendants on its finding that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiffs. The court explained that probable cause was based on the same facts for all defendants and that the issue had been extensively briefed and discussed at a hearing. The court had also stated that the plaintiffs had a sufficient opportunity to address the issue before summary judgment was entered for the Allied defendants.

Motion for Reconsideration

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling for the Allied defendants. The court later allowed additional briefing, while standing by its earlier ruling, on whether the claim against those defendants could survive the finding that probable cause existed.

The only claim against the Allied defendants was malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs acknowledged that lack of probable cause is an element of that claim. They argued that a factual dispute existed over whether Hankins honestly believed that the plaintiffs were inside the Macy’s store or deliberately lied to the police. They also renewed their argument that they were at McDonald’s rather than at the Macy’s construction site.

Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected both arguments. It said its earlier ruling expressly found probable cause whether or not the Allied defendants had seen the plaintiffs leaving Macy’s. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ evidence and declarations concerning McDonald’s, noting that police had been told on the night of the arrest that there was no video showing the plaintiffs entering or leaving McDonald’s.

The court identified several facts supporting probable cause: the plaintiffs’ cars were parked next to the construction site and hundreds of yards from McDonald’s; the plaintiffs were at the mall hours after most stores had closed; both had headlamps matching the mall officers’ description; industrial bolt cutters were found in one plaintiff’s car; security officers had initially seen the plaintiffs near the construction site; the construction-site fence was open and its lock was cut; tools and equipment were found near the open gate; and the project superintendent said the items had not been placed there by the construction team and that the plaintiffs were not construction-project employees.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.