Shiheiber v. Hernandez

Background

At an October 20, 2023 pretrial conference, the court ruled that Ibrahim Nimer Shiheiber had adequately asserted a federal false-arrest claim in his operative complaint and could proceed with that claim at trial. Brett Hernandez asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of that ruling.

The defendant’s arguments

Hernandez relied on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which allows reconsideration when the court manifestly failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. He argued that, because he had witnessed parking violations in front of him, he had probable cause to make a discretionary arrest under Atwater v. City of Lago Vista.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the request for two reasons. First, it found that the probable-cause argument had not been presented before the earlier ruling. The court had offered Hernandez’s counsel an opportunity at the pretrial conference to address whether Shiheiber should be allowed to assert a false-arrest claim at trial, but counsel declined to make an argument. The court also noted that Hernandez had discussed the issue in pretrial filings, including a trial brief and opposition to Shiheiber’s proposed false-arrest jury instruction, and that Shiheiber had responded in his trial brief. The court concluded that Hernandez reasonably should have expected the issue to arise at the conference and had waived the argument by declining to present it then.

Second, the court said the probable-cause argument did not address the question decided at the conference: whether Shiheiber, who was representing himself when he filed the Second Amended Complaint, had sufficiently asserted a false-arrest claim. Instead, the argument concerned whether Hernandez might have had a viable defense on summary judgment if he had understood that the claim was being asserted. Hernandez did not challenge the court’s conclusion that the Second Amended Complaint appeared to assert both an unlawful-detention claim and a false-arrest claim.

The court further explained that the detention and arrest theories were closely related under the facts described. The detention might or might not have become an arrest requiring probable cause. The court pointed to Hernandez’s summary-judgment motion, which treated the detention as lawful based on a traffic infraction and argued that Shiheiber’s resistance to a pat-down created probable cause to arrest for resisting arrest. The court also noted that the Second Amended Complaint alleged that Shiheiber had been held in handcuffs in a squad car for 30 minutes without “warranted cause.”

Disposition

The court found no reason to reconsider its conclusion that the false-arrest claim was adequately asserted. It denied the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court stated that Hernandez had not waived the separate merits argument that witnessing the traffic stop gave him probable cause to arrest Shiheiber. It said that issue would be considered at the November 3, 2023 pretrial conference, although the court might not decide it at that time, and directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the defense and the effect of including the claim at trial.