Opinion
Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California February 10, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:10-cv-06783-MWFCW. Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding.
For FLORENTINA DEMUTH, Plaintiff - Appellant: Daniel A. Crawford, Henry G. Weinstein, Esquire, Crawford Weinstein LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA.
For COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, WAI CHIU R. LI, an individual, Defendants - Appellees: Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Maureen Thomas, Michael Thomas, Esquire, Attorney, Thomas and Thomas, AGoura Hills, CA.
For LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, Defendant - Appellee: Maureen Thomas, Michael Thomas, Esquire, Attorney, Thomas and Thomas, AGoura Hills, CA.
Before: KOZINSKI, CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. Quasi-judicial immunity protects only those " who faithfully execute valid court orders." Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 764 (9th Cir. 1987). Referee Shirley's comment explicitly provided for a non-arrest alternative in the event that Demuth refused to come to court. Because " absolute immunity does not protect defendants from damage claims directed . . . to the manner of [a court order's] execution," Li isn't entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Martin v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Pueblo, 909 F.2d 402, 405 (10th Cir. 1990).
2. The district court's rejection of Demuth's state law claims against Li and the County of Los Angeles was premised entirely on its conclusion that Li's conduct was reasonable. Because we hold in our opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum that Li's conduct was not reasonable, we remand for reconsideration of these claims. 3. The district court properly treated Demuth's wrongful arrest and excessive force claims as one and the same because both claims depended entirely on Li's allegedly unauthorized arrest of Demuth.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
Costs to appellant.