Facts

Barry Brown and Jennifer Brown sued Jon Alexander, Sheriff Dean Wilson, Sheriff's Detective Ed Fleshman, Julie Cain, Cindy Salatnay, County of Del Norte and Donald Crockett.

Crockett and Jennifer were married from July 2007 until August 2009, when their marriage ended in divorce. They shared custody of their daughters, Jane Does 1 and 2, who were born in 2007. Barry Brown was Jennifer's father.

Alexander was the former District Attorney for the county. Cain was a supervisor for the county's Child Protective Services while Salatnay was a CPS social worker. Meanwhile, the county operated, controlled, and maintained the Sheriff's Dept., CPS, and District Attorney's Office.

The Browns asserted several causes of action against several defendants, including: conspiracy, false imprisonment, defamation, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, vicarious liability, and civil rights violations. As to Crockett, the Browns alleged causes of action for IIED, negligence, and child sex abuse and neglect.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Jennifer accused her former husband of molesting their daughters.

In 2009, Jane Doe 1 told her mother that her father had molested her. Jennifer reported her daughters' complaints to the county sheriff, but the authorities didn't take any action. She subsequently took her daughter to the hospital, but the hospital staff refused to perform a Sexual Assault Reponse Team (SART). A SART was later performed, but no further investigation occurred. Meanwhile, neither Crockett nor Jane Doe 1 were interviewed.

Around 2011, the girls told their mom that their father had shown them movies of naked people on television. Again, Jennifer reported the incident to the sheriff's dept. The department took no further action.

Then, on Jan. 27, 2012, the children returned home after staying with Crockett for several days. They appeared physically ill and disheveled. Jennifer took them to the hospital, which then filed a report with Child Welfare Services (CWS), accusing Crockett of medical neglect. Days later, the children returned to the hospital where the hospital filed another CWS report alleging that both children claimed they had been molested by their father.

The Browns alleged that all of the defendants, excluding Crockett, were made aware of the sexual molestation claims, but chose not to investigate Crockett because Crockett's family exerted exerted political and personal influence in the county.

Concerned that his granddaughters' complaints were not being properly investigated, Barry Brown contacted the district attorney's and informed the DA that he was taking the children to the neighboring Humboldt County as a protective measure. Soon after, a county judge issued an arrest warrant for the Browns for kidnapping the children. The Browns contended that the affidavit in support of the warrant was false and that defendants knew that the basis for the warrant was false. Barry was arrested on Feb. 9, 2012, but no criminal charges were filed against him. Jennifer was subsequently arrested around March 10. Jennifer alleged that six police officers used excessive force to subdue and arrest her. She was then jailed and mocked by the jail staff. Moreover, she was denied medication, and was demeaned by Alexander and jail staff by throwing a party to celebrate her arrest.

As a result of their arrest, the children were taken into CWS custody and placed in a foster home that was run by a friend of Crockett's close friend. Jennifer was denied visitation, and CPS subsequently transferred primary custody of the children to Crockett.

Despite the children's repeated accusations of molestation by their father, CPS officials continued to write either an inconclusive or unsubstantiated report.

In February 2013, the juvenile court adjudged the children to be dependents. The children were taken into custody by CWS and placed into a foster home. CWS, however, refused to return the children to Jennifer because of the stress she had caused by reporting abuse and molestation. Eventually, the CWS returned the children to Crockett's custody, which the Browns claimed was unauthorized.

Jennifer was later allowed minimal, supervised visits with her daughters. Salatnay later provided a jurisdictional report to the juvenile court, arguing that the children should be left in Crockett's custody. The Browns claimed that Salatnay intentionally lied and misled the court in arguing for Crockett's custody.

The Brown then sued the defendants, arguing that they had conspired to protect Crockett from scrutiny. As such, defendant violated their constitutional rights and various state laws.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Browns' lawsuit. Alternatively, defendants argued that the court should abstain from hearing the case, or at least stay the case. Defendants also contended that Alexander was immune from prosecution, and should be dismissed from the case. The county defendants likewise argued that Alexander, Cain, and Salatnay were immune to all of plaintiffs' claims.

Crockett argued that, the court could examine its subject-matter jurisdiction in that the state court had already found Jennifer's molestation accusations to be false and that examination of family law matters was best left to state court. Crockett argued that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the allegations against Crockett since the state law claims substantially predominated over the only claim, the civil rights claim, which the federal court had original jurisdiction.

Result

The court did not find abstention to be appropriate in this case. The court then found that the Browns' constitutional allegations were bare and conclusory. As such, the court dismissed them, but with leave to amend. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss the Browns' civil rights claims was denied. The court then rejected Alexander's claim for prosecutorial immunity. The court likewise did not find that he was entitled to qualified immunity. On the other hand, the court found that Cain, Salatnay, and Alexander were immune from the Browns' state law claims per California law's grant of immunity. However, this immunity did not extend to actions taken after the investigation, but given that the Browns' allegations referred to actions taken outside defendants' investigative conduct, the court dismissed the Browns' state law claims against Alexander, Cain, and Salatnay with prejudice, except the Browns' false arrest claim against Alexander. The county also dismissed the Browns' civil rights violation claim against the county, but with leave to amend. Meanwhile, the court dismissed the negligence claim against Crockett. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Browns' IIED and child abuse and neglect claims against Crockett with prejudice on the basis that the state law claims predominated over the federal law claim. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.