MOORE, J. —
Plaintiffs Gabrielle A. and Nicholas G. (the parents) and John A. and Gregory A. (the children) appeal from a judgment following the
Plaintiffs' claims relate to the detention of John and Gregory for six months, specifically, the two months they were detained in Orange County before the case was transferred to Los Angeles. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the parents' knowing and voluntary pleas of no contest to the jurisdictional allegations during dependency proceedings defeat their claims, and the social workers are entitled to immunity. Finally, even if we were to disregard the no contest pleas and the relevant immunity doctrines, defendants correctly argue they met their burden to establish they were entitled to summary judgment on each cause of action, and plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues of material fact. Accordingly, we affirm.
In 2011, plaintiffs Gabrielle A. and Nicholas G., a married couple, were living in Los Angeles County. They were raising John who was born in July 2009, and decided to have another child. As they had done with John, they used in vitro fertilization (IVF) and a sperm donor to conceive their second child, who was due to be born in July 2011.
In May 2011, Gabrielle and John were visiting her mother, Barbara A. According to one of plaintiffs' complaints, Nicholas did not accompany her because Barbara despised him and refused to allow him into her home.
Gabrielle went into early labor, and gave birth at Hoag Hospital (Hoag) to Gregory at 31 weeks. Three days later, Gabrielle was released, and she returned to Barbara's home. Gregory remained in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
A few days later, Hoag employees filed a referral for an immediate response from the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA). Hoag staff
Gabrielle disputes this version of events, stating she was attempting to pick up a fallen item, not move Gregory's isolette. But she does not dispute that she was placed on a hospital hold pending evaluation. Hospital employees informed Villa that Gabrielle had expressed thoughts of hurting her children and demonstrated paranoia.
Nicholas, meanwhile, had not yet been to visit his newborn son, although nearly a week had elapsed since his birth. He was not listed on the birth certificate as the child's father. He was not listed on hospital records. When interviewed, after being placed on the hospital hold, Gabrielle had told Villa that her children were conceived through IVF using sperm donors, and she did not know who the fathers were.
Gabrielle also told Villa that she had placed her hands over Gregory "`and created a protective bubble oric shield that would keep him free of all evil.'" Villa also spoke to Barbara, who reported Gabrielle had become agitated and aggressive a few days after Gregory's birth, including abusive behavior toward her. Barbara told Villa she was not aware that Gabrielle and Nicholas were married.
Based on her interviews with Gabrielle, Barbara, numerous members of hospital staff, and the incomplete information she had received about Nicholas's paternity, Villa, with her supervisor's and law enforcement's concurrence, placed Gregory on a hospital hold and both children in protective custody. The hospital hold was signed and accepted by a nurse at Hoag. Villa also prepared applications for dependency petitions.
The next day, a Sunday, Nicholas presented a copy of his marriage certificate to Social Services Supervisor Brian Satterfield at Orangewood Children's Home (Orangewood) and asked him to release John to his custody. Satterfield was acting as duty officer that day, which meant he had responsibility for overseeing operations at Orangewood. He had no authority to release any child, and so informed Nicholas. Other than his duties at Orangewood, Satterfield had no other involvement in the case. Citing again to their complaint, Nicholas claimed Satterfield told him he did have such authority.
McLuckey also spoke to Nicholas. According to her report, he said he was not present for Gregory's birth because Gabrielle and Barbara had told him "things were fine" and requested he wait a few days. He had appointments on two days, and needed to stay home to take care of family pets. He stated he "`would do anything Barbara and [Gabrielle] want him to.'" He admitted Gabrielle is "`strong-willed'" and that he would make efforts to "`appease'" her. He acknowledged that Gabrielle chewed John's food, but said it did not happen regularly. He admitted Gabrielle's need for psychological help.
Gabrielle told McLuckey she had annulled her marriage to Nicholas due to fraud.
She also spoke with Veronica H., Gabrielle's sister. Veronica reported she had a good relationship with Gabrielle and stated her opinion that Gabrielle was an excellent mother, although she could be "obsessive and nervous" and that Gabrielle believed in homeopathic remedies and was extremely health conscious. Veronica stated she and her siblings had an abusive childhood due to Barbara's alcoholism and abuse. Veronica said that Nicholas provided child care for Veronica's own son. She wished to be considered for placement, if necessary.
McLuckey contacted John's pediatrician about his prior care and history, which did not raise any issues. She also received a copy of the marriage certificate between Gabrielle and Nicholas and investigated whether there were any police contacts in their city of residence.
The detention report also noted that a home inspection had been completed and no visible hazards or safety concerns were reported. The report also
Ultimately, McLuckey's report recommended the children be detained, with John placed in Nicholas's care. She also recommended Gregory be placed with Nicholas when he was released from the hospital, with certain protective orders in place. Gabrielle was not to reside in the home until her mental health was stabilized, with consistent therapy and medication; Nicholas was not to permit any unmonitored contact between Gabrielle and the children; and visits between Gabrielle and the children needed to be monitored by a designated monitor, not Nicholas. McLuckey also prepared the dependency petition. The petition cited Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), failure to protect, as the basis for dependency.
The detention hearing was held on May 25, 2011, before Commissioner Jane L. Shade. Despite McLuckey's recommendation that both John and, in due course, Gregory, be returned to Nicholas's care, the children's court-appointed counsel objected. Counsel was concerned that Nicholas was "passive" and minimized Gabrielle's problems, and would not be able to handle the situation if Gabrielle turned up at the home in an erratic and unstable condition. Counsel raised Nicholas's own statement to SSA that he "`would do anything Barbara and [Gabrielle] want him to.'" Also raised was the e-mail Westbrook sent to McLuckey about Nicholas's behavior with SSA staff following detention. While counsel specified that she was not arguing the children should never be placed with Nicholas, she felt it was premature due to the lack of a safety plan. Ultimately, the court agreed and ordered the children detained. Nicholas was to have monitored visits with John.
In a related hearing on May 27, the court concluded that Nicholas was the presumed father of both children. The court continued its previous order, though it granted Nicholas additional visitation and allowed SSA to liberalize or restrict visitation as necessary.
There is a document in the record entitled "Orange County Social Services Agency Detention Disposition Worksheet." This document is undated and unsigned. It states, with regard to placement: "SSA is authorized to release to suitable adult (placement) pending hearing. SSA to conduct relative placement evaluation as authorized by law (SSA can consider relatives but do not place)."
Following the detention hearing, Westbrook began evaluating relatives as placement options. She completed an assessment of the home of Veronica and her husband on June 1. Westbrook's home visit revealed that Veronica, her husband and six-year-old child lived in a one-bedroom apartment, with all three sharing one bed. State regulations require each child to have their own bed or crib, and based on the size of the bedroom, Westbrook did not believe all necessary beds could be accommodated.
Both Veronica and her husband expressed concerns to Westbrook about Gabrielle, and how they might protect themselves if Gabrielle's mental health declined. Veronica's husband was concerned Gabrielle could overpower him and steal the children. Veronica thought they might move to a larger residence with a confidential address.
Westbrook's investigation also showed that Veronica had two unresolved criminal matters. Westbrook told Veronica that if the issues regarding required beds or cribs could be resolved, the placement recommendation would be favorable. Westbrook requested an exemption for the criminal issues.
Westbrook also did an evaluation of Barbara's home on June 8. Immediately after detention, Westbrook had ruled out Barbara because she could not protect herself from Gabrielle and was fearful of Nicholas. She also did not think she could manage the newborn.
After the detention hearing, however, Westbrook reevaluated and reconsidered. She found that Barbara had a preexisting relationship with John, and he would run to be with her during visits. Many of John's personal items were at Barbara's home. Barbara told Westbrook she could hire a nanny or helper if the children were placed with her.
Gabrielle had informed senior social worker Sandra Parrish-Rehoreg that she preferred the children be placed with her and Nicholas, then with
The jurisdiction/disposition report was prepared by senior social worker Lauri Luchonok. The initial report was filed on June 14, with addenda filed on June 15 and 16. The report provided a comprehensive overview of the facts and issues, including reports on the many interviews Luchonok had conducted. Ultimately, Luchonok recommended the petition be sustained and the matter transferred to Los Angeles for disposition. Gabrielle argues that a psychiatrist's evaluation, dated June 13, should have been discussed in the report. The evaluation concluded that Gabrielle had suffered from "post-partum psychosis due to acute stress, but symptoms resolved," and said her current diagnosis was "adjustment disorder with anxiety."
On June 15, the jurisdictional hearing before Referee Barbara Evans
At that same hearing, the court clarified its order concerning placement: "The agency does have the authority to release to a suitable adult and that would include, certainly, the grandmother or the aunt as is in the best interest of the children."
Westbrook approved placement of John with Barbara on June 16. It was reported to the court in an addendum to the jurisdictional report that this placement would occur. Barbara picked John up from Orangewood on June 17. On June 20, after confirming Barbara had hired a full-time nurse to help with Gregory's care, Westbrook approved placement of Gregory with Barbara.
The parties were in court again on June 16,
Nicholas stated he felt the jurisdiction/disposition report included "a lot of false statements," and the court advised that if the matter proceeded to trial, his attorney would have the right to cross-examine the person or persons who prepared the reports. The father responded he just wanted to get his children back as quickly as possible, to which the court replied, "I don't know what the answer is to your question." Nicholas again denied any wrongdoing. The court ordered the matter off the record at that point.
When proceedings resumed, the court asked counsel if they had had the opportunity to speak with their clients. Nicholas's attorney stated she had explained, again, that the stipulation would resolve the issue of jurisdiction only, and at a disposition hearing, he would still have the right to a trial, to call witnesses, and to testify. The court then inquired of Nicholas: "The court still has concerns, based on your statements a little while ago, about the fact that you haven't had an opportunity to be heard. Nobody let you be heard. You have that right. I want you to be heard. But if you enter a plea today, you're not going to be heard, at least not on the issues of the things that are in the petition. [¶] Do you understand that?" Nicholas responded: "Yes, I do. I'm prepared to go along with the petition, you honor." Nicholas agreed that this was his independent decision, and agreed again when asked if it was his "independent, intelligent decision." He also replied in the affirmative to questions asking whether he had an adequate opportunity to discuss the matter with counsel. He said he did not have any concerns or doubts, or further questions for the court. When informed he still had the right to a trial, he replied, "I understand that, your honor, but I don't feel a trial at this point will be necessary, your honor."
The court inquired next of Gabrielle. In response to the court's questions, Gabrielle agreed she understood her rights; her attorney had adequately
Accordingly, the court determined that each parent had knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her right to a trial and they wished to enter a plea. The parents subsequently pleaded no contest to the allegations of the amended petition, and counsel joined. The court determined there was a factual basis for the plea, and found by a preponderance of the evidence that the petition was true. The court found the children's legal residence was in the county of Los Angeles, and ordered the case transferred there, with prior orders to remain in full force and effect until disposition.
Senior social worker Guadalupe Arteaga was acting as court officer in the department where the jurisdictional hearing took place. As court officer, her role included preparing files for hearings, reviewing reports, and acting as liaison between the court and social services. Arteaga did not take note of the addendum report, in which Luchonok had reported that John would be placed with Barbara on the day of the hearing. She believed John was still at Orangewood. As a result, after the court ordered the case transferred to Los Angeles, she followed standard practice for a child in an emergency shelter and completed a transfer order, a standard Judicial Council form that directed the child be transferred to the new county within seven days. She later testified that had she known that John was with Barbara, she would not have ordered the transfer to occur within seven days. Luchonok did not discover the transfer order until approximately a week after the hearing. Once she did, she contacted Arteaga and informed her of the issue, and consulted county counsel, who recommended that John remain with Barbara because removing him to a new foster care situation would be detrimental. Counsel informed Luchonok that in his view, moving John to Los Angeles was not required.
After this hearing, Nicholas spoke on the phone with senior social services supervisor Veronica Zuniga about the transfer of the case to Los Angeles.
Commissioner Shade, who had not presided at the jurisdictional hearing, was made aware of the issue of the transfer order at a June 27 hearing. Despite the factual situation created by the error, the court declined to amend the transfer order because the order was made by a temporary judge to whom all counsel had stipulated, and if the court were to consider new argument, it would be tantamount to an improper appeal. The children's counsel strenuously objected to removing John from Barbara's home. Nonetheless, the court
County counsel subsequently sent an e-mail to Luchonok advising her to transfer the case, leave the children in placement, and Los Angeles would sort it out. "The parents," counsel wrote, "are not denied any due process on the issue since the case has been transferred to LA for disposition and placement is at issue at disposition. Thus, the parents would be able to litigate this issue in Los Angeles. Also, it would likely be detrimental to remove the child from this relative placement to go into congregate care in Los Angeles pending further placement by Los Angeles."
The case was transferred on July 18. Numerous proceedings were held in Los Angeles County between July and November. Gabrielle and Nicholas claim they were denied visitation through part of this period.
In March 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint (which does not appear to be included in the record) against 16 defendants (including most of the social workers named above; we will discuss this in more detail post) in Los Angeles Superior Court. They filed a first amended complaint on July 6. On August 8, the defendants removed the matter to federal district court. At a
On September 24, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and attempted again to plead federal claims. A few days later, the district court dismissed all federal claims and remanded the matter back to state court in Los Angeles County, where plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. This complaint, too, included federal causes of action, so defendants again removed the case to federal district court.
In January 2013, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs had failed to allege specific facts as to each defendant on each alleged claim. Leave to amend was granted, and in February, plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint (the complaint). That complaint was 234 pages long, included 32 causes of action, and named, as relevant here, the following defendants: the County, McLuckey, Zuniga, Parrish-Rehoreg, Luchonok, Westbrook, Villa, and Satterfield. The topics in the complaint include everything from the original detention, to the alleged failure to follow the breast milk and visitation orders, to the handling of the transfer to Los Angeles. In sum, plaintiffs accused the County and the social workers of not merely negligent but grossly improper (and criminal) conduct, including falsifying evidence, failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, committing perjury, and acting with fraud, duress, and malice in their conduct of the case.
After rulings in the federal court on motions to dismiss, as well as voluntary dismissals, the seven individual social workers and the County were the only remaining defendants.
The County and the seven social workers brought a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment on eight of the federal claims, including alleged violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In October 2013, the district court granted the motion in its entirety.
We briefly summarize some of the district court's pertinent findings. The court found that exigent circumstances existed to detain the children without a warrant at Hoag, and that Nicholas's arrival at Hoag after the children were detained did not alter matters; there was no evidence to show conduct by the social workers to establish a claim for deliberate indifference, or behavior that shocks the conscience; the social workers were entitled to immunity because there was no evidence of material false statements; numerous claims by the plaintiffs were barred by the parents' pleas of no contest in dependency court.
In April 2014, defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment.
In their opposition plaintiffs argued the district court's rulings had no preclusive effect; the no contest pleas were invalidated by the subsequent trial in Los Angeles; the petition to detain the children was fraudulent; the actions of various social workers were malicious; the juvenile court had determined the social workers had violated various orders concerning visits, breast milk and the case's transfer to Los Angeles; Barbara should not have been used as a placement; discretionary immunity did not apply; and there was sufficient evidence of triable issues of fact to proceed on their claims.
Defendants filed their reply papers. The hearing on the motion was continued twice, to August 27.
At the hearing, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The court stated it was not applying preclusion doctrines to the district court's decision, but "does rely on the same basic legal grounds." The court went on: "Specifically, two undisputed facts defeat plaintiffs' claims. [¶] First, the vast majority of the plaintiffs' allegations are defeated by absolute immunity given to social workers under Government Code section 820.2 for child removal and placement decisions in dependency proceedings.... [¶] ... [¶] [P]laintiffs` claims that defendants fabricated evidence, made false
The order was subsequently entered, as was the judgment. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. Plaintiffs now appeal.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) To prevail on the motion, a defendant must demonstrate the plaintiff's cause of action has no merit. This requirement can be satisfied by showing either one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that a complete defense exists. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (o), (p); Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 494, 499-500 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 726].)
"[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493].) "A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question." (Id. at p. 851.) "There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. [Fn. omitted.]" (Id. at p. 850.)
To meet the burden of a prima facie case, the litigant may not rely on mere "allegations or denials of [the] pleadings." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Maltby v. Shook (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 349, 355 [280 P.2d 541].) Further, "After-the-fact attempts to reverse prior admissions are impermissible because a party cannot rely on contradictions in his own testimony to create a triable issue of fact. [Citations.]" (Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566, 573-574 [259 Cal.Rptr. 518].)
Plaintiffs argue that the parents' no contest pleas to the question of whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction should be disregarded, because they were not entered into voluntarily or intelligently, but based on coercion and duress. This contention, however, is based on an extremely selective reading of the record.
It is certainly a fair reading of the record to say that Nicholas initially had misgivings about the plea, denying wrongdoing and stating he just wanted his children back as soon as possible. But there is no reasonable question, and no triable issue of fact, that when the court returned after a recess Nicholas agreed that pleading no contest was his independent decision, and agreed again when asked if it was his "independent, intelligent decision." The court bent over backwards to make sure Nicholas understood the import of his decision, knew he had the right to a trial, and had the opportunity to discuss the matter with counsel. He repeatedly agreed that he did. Therefore, whatever initial doubts he had, he overcame them, and the record reflects that he voluntarily agreed to plead no contest. Moreover, the record includes no doubts whatsoever as expressed by Gabrielle. We conclude the trial court properly advised the parents of their rights and met the other requirements of accepting a plea set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 5.682.
The parents claim their deposition testimony, given in this case, should be considered as evidence of what they knew and understood at the time they entered the pleas. We disagree. Self-serving testimony cannot contradict prior admissions in determining a motion for summary judgment. (See Thompson v. Williams, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 573.)
The parents also claim they could not "`admit'" to facts that were unknown to them at the time of the plea, because they only learned of discrepancies later. The facts they pleaded to, in the amended petition, are summarized as follows: (1) That Gabrielle gave birth to Gregory at 31 weeks, and several days later, she was hospitalized at Hoag under a psychiatric hold; (2) On the day of the hold, Gabrielle attempted to remove Gregory from the NICU, despite his continued need for medical care, and Gabrielle was combative; (3) Gabrielle had unresolved mental health issues; and (4) Nicholas knew or should have known of Gabrielle's mental health issues.
The parents also argue that their no contest pleas at the jurisdiction hearing should be disregarded because the children, under certain conditions, were returned to them at disposition. This, simply put, is a specious argument. The jurisdiction order was never set aside or vacated — indeed, the case could not have proceeded to disposition if it had been. The fact that they "prevailed" later does not result in a dismissal of the jurisdictional order. It simply results in a new order. Indeed, nothing that occurred with respect to disposition calls into question the propriety of asserting jurisdiction. The court simply found, five months later, that the children could be released, because Nicholas was nonoffending "at [that] point," and the testimony of Gabrielle's psychiatrist provided evidence that the children could be safely returned at that time.
Accordingly, the no contest pleas act as a bar to subsequently calling into question the basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' claims are fundamentally premised on their assertions that the children were wrongfully removed, detained, and subjected to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court based on the alleged intentional misconduct of the social workers. But given that their pleas admitted sufficient evidence for the court to exercise that jurisdiction, these arguments are simply untenable.
In addition to the conclusion that plaintiffs cannot argue an insufficient factual basis for detention or jurisdiction, immunity doctrines bar plaintiffs' claims. These immunity doctrines are codified in Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.2.
Government Code section 820.2 states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused." Similarly, Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (b), provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability."
Plaintiffs point to numerous acts by the various social workers involved as evidence that immunity should not apply under the limits of Government Code
Plaintiffs also claim that Villa "fraudulently changed the information on the Applications for Petitions" to make it seem that Nicholas was not the father or a viable placement option. But neither the applications themselves nor Villa's testimony support any inference of malice. There was no evidence that Villa knew of Nicholas's status at the time. At best, there is evidence of a lack of information and confusion.
The purported evidence of malice against the other social workers is equally weak. Plaintiffs make much of Luchonok withholding the "exculpatory evidence" of a report by Gabrielle's psychiatrist, with no mention as to why Gabrielle's own counsel did not already have a copy of that same report. Moreover, Luchonok testified at her deposition that by the time she received the psychiatrist's report, her own report to the court had already been written. Even if Luchonok had received the report before the continued hearing, this is not evidence of malice. The psychiatrist's report was dated the day before Luchonok's report was filed.
Plaintiffs' legal arguments are equally unavailing. They cite to Elton v. County of Orange (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 1053 [84 Cal.Rptr. 27], to argue the court should not have applied the immunity doctrine. But that case was heard
The law does not grant immunity to social workers because it believes they are perfect, or should never be questioned or called to account for their actions. The law grants them immunity because otherwise they would simply not be able to do their jobs. If every time they removed a child, based on the information they had at the time, they had to fear a lawsuit if they were later proved wrong, the system would be paralyzed and children would be in danger. Nor would we ever find qualified people willing to become social workers under such conditions. Here, while there is some evidence of confusion and miscommunication, none of it rises to the level of malice or even incompetence. The social workers deserve the immunity the law provides.
Finally, in addition to immunity and the no contest pleas, defendants successfully demonstrated the plaintiffs' claims have no merit, thereby providing separate and independent grounds for granting summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (o), (p).) While not discussed in the trial court's ruling, we may uphold the decision of the trial court to grant summary judgment if it is correct on any ground. (Schubert v. Reynolds, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 109-110.)
Plaintiffs do not discuss these issues in either of their briefs, despite defendants briefing them at some length. While we could deem this failure to brief as conceding the issue, in the interests of justice, we consider the arguments on their merits, referring to plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for summary judgment in the trial court as appropriate.
Indeed, what defendants' evidence showed was that none of the named social workers have records of discipline, all were hired according to established procedures, and they have each completed all relevant training. Many had years or decades of experience.
Zuniga was Luchonok's supervisor, but her involvement in this matter was "limited to discussing the matter with her and possibly reviewing her reports prior to their submission to the Juvenile Court." Given Luchonok's experience, prior record and training, Zuniga had no reason to doubt her competence.
Plaintiffs' argument on this point in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment (again, they declined to brief these points on appeal) consists of a paragraph conclusorily stating that the social workers "certainly acted outrageously." They cited no specific evidence, but merely referred to facts contained in six other legal arguments. They do not even cite to evidence that plaintiffs suffered the severe emotional distress required, but state it "can be reasonably inferred." Indeed, it cannot. "[I]t is not enough in opposing summary judgment to surmise reasons or make unfounded allegations: `a party "cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact...."' [Citation.]" (Christina C., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 1379.) Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to this cause of action.
Plaintiffs have no better luck with their arguments under state civil rights statutes. Section 43
Plaintiffs' remaining causes of action are under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Bane Act) (§ 52.1) and the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 (Ralph Act) (§§ 51.7, 52). The Bane Act prohibits interfering "by threat, intimidation, or
The Ralph Act is an antidiscrimination scheme. Section 52, subdivision (a), states: "Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages...." Section 51, subdivision (b), is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California's basic antidiscrimination statute, forbidding bias based on "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status." Sections 51.5 and 51.6 prohibit, respectively, boycotts or blacklists based on protected characteristics as described in the Unruh Civil Rights Act and gender-based pricing, respectively. Section 51.7, subdivision (a), states that everyone in California has "the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive."
We conclude defendants met their burden to establish a complete defense or missing element of each of plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate triable issues of material facts as to any of these causes of action. Accordingly, even if plaintiffs had prevailed in their arguments with respect to immunity and the no contest pleas, summary judgment was, nonetheless, properly granted in defendants' favor.
The judgment is affirmed. Defendants are entitled to their costs on appeal.
Bedsworth, Acting P. J., and Aronson, J., concurred.
