Cheesman v. Ellensburg, City of

1 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [2] Mar 02, 2020 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [5] 6 ROY D. CHEESMAN, No. 1:18-CV-03017-SAB 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 DETECTIVE JENNIFER MARGHEIM, 10 CORPORAL JASON BRUNK, and 11 OFFICER LUCAS ANDERSON, 12 Defendants. 13 ORDER GRANTING 14 RUTH ANNE CONDE CHEESMAN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 15 Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 v. 17 DETECTIVE JENNIFER MARGHEIM, 18 JIM WEED, 19 Defendants. [20] 21 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 22 No. 47; Plaintiffs’ Motion Demand Right to a Jury Trial, ECF No. 57; Plaintiffs’ 23 Motion to Strike, ECF No. 59; and Plaintiffs’ Pleading for Court Permission to 24 Respond Defendants’ Reply in Support of Summary Judgment, ECF No. 61. A 25 hearing on the motions was held on February 19, 2020. Plaintiffs represented 26 themselves at the hearing and Defendants were represented by Kirk A. Ehlis. 27 Plaintiffs are suing police officers of the Ellensburg Police Department 28 who had various interactions with them. Most of their claims are directed at 1 Detective Jennifer Margheim with respect to her investigation into allegations 2 surrounding Plaintiff Roy Cheesman’s alleged abuse of his children. 3 Motion Standard 4 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no 5 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as 6 a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue for trial unless 7 there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a 8 verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 250 9 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a 10 genuine issue of fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 11 If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must go 12 beyond the pleadings and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine 13 issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 . 14 In addition to showing there are no questions of material fact, the moving 15 party must also show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Univ. 16 of Wash. Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party is 17 entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make 18 a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim on which the non-moving 19 party has the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 . The non-moving party 20 cannot rely on conclusory allegations alone to create an issue of material fact. 21 Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993). 22 When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court may neither 23 weigh the evidence nor assess credibility; instead, “the evidence of the non24 movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his 25 favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 . 26 Qualified Immunity 27 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 28 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 1 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson 2 v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 3 800, 818 (1982)). “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the 4 need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly 5 and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when 6 they perform their duties reasonably. The protection of qualified immunity 7 applies regardless of whether the government official’s error is a mistake of law, 8 a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.” Id. 9 (citation omitted). 10 Where the defense of qualified immunity is at issue, the Court applies a 11 two-part inquiry to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Burke v. Cnty. of Alameda, 586 F.3d 12 725, 731 (2009). The Court asks whether the defendants’ actions violated the 13 Constitution, and whether the right violated was clearly established. Id. Courts 14 may exercise their discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified 15 immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances of the 16 particular case at hand. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236 . 17 Under the qualified immunity analysis, a “clearly established right” is one 18 that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable officer would have understood that 19 what she is doing violates the right. Mullenix v. Luna, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 20 307 (2015). “To determine whether a right was clearly established, a court turns 21 to Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law existing at the time of the alleged act.” 22 See Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho, 623 F.3d 945, 967 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 It is not necessarily that a case is directly on point, but “existing precedent must 24 have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Id. (citing 25 Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). Simply put, “qualified immunity 26 protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the 27 law.’” Id. (quotation omitted). 28 // 1 State Law Immunity 2 State employees enjoy qualified statutory immunity for reporting child 3 abuse: (1)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, any person [4] participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this 5 chapter or testifying as to alleged child abuse or neglect in a judicial proceeding shall in so doing be immune from any liability arising [6] out of such reporting or testifying under any law of this state or its 7 political subdivisions. [8] Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.060 (1)(a). 9 The burden is on the employee to prove that she acted in good faith under 10 RCW 26.44.060 in reporting the abuse. Dunning v. Pacerelli, 63 Wash.App. 232 , 11 240 (1991). An officer enjoys qualified common law immunity for investigating 12 child abuse. Babcock v State, 116 Wash.2d 596, 618 (1991) To receive this 13 qualified immunity, the officer must (1) carry out a statutory duty, (2) according 14 to procedures dictated by statute or superiors, and (3) act reasonably. Id. 15 Facts 16 On September 25, 2015, Defendant Jason Brunk was dispatched to The 17 Green Shelf in Ellensburg, Washington. The owner of the store spoke with 18 Officer Brunk. She explained that Mr. Cheesman had come into the store, 19 became upset that her products were so expensive and began yelling at 20 employees and customers. He also threw products from the shelf. The owner 21 asked Officer Brunk to trespass Mr. Cheesman from the store. Officer Self, who 22 is not a defendant in this action, went to the Cheesman residence and told Mr. 23 Cheesman that he was trespassed from the Green Shelf and if he returned to the 24 store, he could be arrested. 25 On November 19, 2016, Defendant Lucas Anderson was dispatched to the 26 Cheesman residence in response to a report from Mr. Cheesman’s neighbor, 27 Keven Burke, that Mr. Cheesman was taking down his fence. Officer Anderson 28 spoke to the neighbor and Mr. Cheesman. Because the ownership of the fence 1 was unclear, he concluded this was a civil matter and Officer Anderson left the 2 premise. 3 On December 7, 2016, Officer Anderson was against dispatched to the 4 Cheesman residence. This time, Mr. Cheesman called to complain that his 5 neighbor, Michael Perisho, who was shooting birds. He had come out of his front 6 door holding an air rifle, although Mr. Cheesman said that Mr. Perisho never 7 pointed the air rifle at him or his house. Mr. Cheesman showed Mr. Anderson 8 several locations on his outer wall where he stated Mr. Perisho had shot the 9 Cheesman house with his air rifle. Officer Anderson looked at the damage but did 10 not think it was caused by an air rifle. Rather, it looked like damage from a larger 11 blunt style object. 12 In speaking with Mr. Perisho, Officer Anderson learned that Mr. Perisho 13 was sneaking into his backyard so he could shoot a woodpecker that had been 14 damaging his house. Mr. Perisho explained that he does not shoot random birds; 15 rather he just scares birds that are damaging his house. Officer Anderson 16 concluded that Mr. Perisho’s conduct was not criminal activity and he closed the 17 case. 18 On the same day, Plaintiffs’ daughter, L.C., who was five at the time, went 19 to school. She had been absent the day before. At some point in the morning, her 20 teacher, Tia Ross, noticed some puffiness around her eye and some slight 21 bruising on the outer edge. She asked L.C. what happened, and L.C. explained 22 that she fell asleep in the chair and somehow hit the chair. Ms. Ross let it pass. 23 Later that afternoon, Ms. Ross asked her again what happened. At that point, L.C. 24 said, “my Dad hit me and hit my sister…two times and then he felt bad, so he put 25 medicine on my eye.” Ms. Ross reported this conversation to the school 26 counselor. 27 The school counsel then told the principal, John Graf, who told the 28 counselor to call Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS indicated the school 1 needed to decide whether to call law enforcement, given the previous interactions 2 with Plaintiff Roy Cheesman.1 Mr. Graf eventually called the school resource 3 officer. Mr. Graf also took three pictures of L.C.’s face. In the process he asked 4 L.C., “Oh, Sweetie, what happened to your eye?” She immediately replied, “My 5 dad got angry and hit me.” She also mentioned that her big sister had gotten into 6 trouble because she had gotten L.C. some ice. She indicated her dad smacked her 7 big sister for getting the ice. School officials let L.C.’s father, Plaintiff Roy 8 Cheesman, take her daughter home after school. 9 The next day, on December 8, 2018, Detective Margheim received an 10 intake from Child Protective Services (CPS) regarding Plaintiffs’ daughter, L.C. 11 The intake form relayed that Nancy Wilbanks was concerned about L.C. because 12 L.C. had been absent from school the prior day and when she returned, she had a 13 bruised right eye that was swollen and purple in color. Ms. Wilbanks said that 14 L.C. had stated that her dad, Plaintiff Roy Cheesman, hit her. 15 Detective Margheim went to Lincoln Elementary School and met with 16 L.C. She immediately noticed bruising in and around her eye. She took four 17 photographs of L.C.’s right eye. CPS Investigator Tabitha Snyder was also 18 present. During the interview, L.C. gave conflicting statements about what 19 happened. At first, she stated she was watching TV, flipped the chair, fell asleep 20 and “bumped herself.” In response to a follow-up question, she responded that 21 her dad hit her and her sister, V.C. 22 Officer Ryan Shull assisted Detective Margheim with the CPS referral. On 23 the same day, he interviewed L.C.’s siblings, V.C. and I.C., at Ellensburg High 24 School. He first spoke with V.C., who did not want the conversation recorded. 25 She stated that she did not witness the incident regarding L.C.’s eye, but she [26] 27 1 Defendants indicate they knew that Plaintiff Roy Cheesman had a history of 28 yelling at staff and was quick to escalate conflict. 1 heard her parents talking about L.C. hitting her eye on the dining room table. She 2 did tell Officer Shull that she was fearful of her father because he “gets upset a 3 lot.” She stated that when he gets angry, he hits her, her siblings and her mother. 4 She said that he had hit her in the past, including the previous evening. She 5 explained that she gets hit multiple times per week. She said she was scared to 6 tell Officer Shull more because she might get hit by her dad for doing so. 7 Officer Shull then spoke with I.C. He also said that he did not witness the 8 incident regarding L.C.’s eye but heard that she hit her head on the dining room 9 table. He told Officer Shull that he and his father get into frequent fights and his 10 dad has a history of hitting him. Because of this, his older brother moved out of 11 the family home. He shared that his dad had hit him two or three weeks prior. He 12 said that he saw his dad hit V.C. four to six years ago, and he never seen him hit 13 L.C., although he stated that his dad is often angry at them. He shared that he 14 does not feel safe around his father. 15 Detective Margheim called Defendant Jim Weed and asked him about 16 placing Plaintiffs’ minor children in protective custody. She relayed what she had 17 learned from interviewing the children. Mr. Weed agreed that the children should 18 be placed in protective custody. Subsequently, he called the Cheesman residence 19 and spoke with Mr. Cheesman. He informed him that he would be arrested if he 20 presented himself at Lincoln Elementary School to pick up L.C. 21 Detective Margheim took all three of Plaintiffs’ children into protective 22 custody and signed them over to CPS Investigator Snyder. 23 John Graf, Lincoln Elementary School principal, asked the Ellensburg 24 Police Department to trespass Mr. Cheesman from school grounds. Officer 25 Anderson was dispatched to the school and Mr. Graf explained that Mr. 26 Cheesman had called him about Mr. Graf’s taking L.C.’s photograph and accused 27 him of doing so for sexual purposes. He stated he feared Mr. Cheesman would 28 attempt to enter school premises in response to Mr. Cheesman’s kids going into 1 protective custody. Officer Anderson called Mr. Cheesman and explained the 2 nature of the trespass notice. Mr. Cheesman said that he understood. 3 Detective Margheim also referred the matter to the Kittitas County 4 Prosecutor. Kittitas County Superior Court found that probable caused existed 5 and issued a summons to Mr. Cheesman. The criminal case filed against Mr. 6 Cheesman was dismissed on December 11, 2017. The dependency petition was 7 also ultimately dismissed. 8 Analysis 9 1. Claims against Defendant Jason Brunk 10 Summary judgment is appropriate on any claims asserted against 11 Defendant Brunk. Plaintiffs have not presented any facts that Officer Brunk 12 violated their constitutional rights. 13 2. Claims against Defendant Lucas Anderson 14 Summary judgment is appropriate on any claims asserted against 15 Defendant Lucas Anderson. Plaintiffs have not presented any facts that Officer 16 Anderson violated their constitutional rights. 17 3. Claims against Defendant Jim Weed 18 In her Complaint, Plaintiff Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman asserts that 19 Defendant Jim Weed violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to bring and get a 20 second opinion of medical examination of L.C. She also complained that 21 Defendant Weed allowed CPS to bring L.C. to the emergency doctor. Finally, she 22 alleges that Defendant Weed make a verbal threat that informed Mr. Cheesman 23 that if the child will be picked up from Lincoln Elementary School, he would be 24 arrested. 25 According to Mr. Weed’s declarations, the only thing he did was confer 26 with Defendant Margheim and call Mr. Cheesman to trespass him from the 27 School. 28 // 1 Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that establish that Defendant Jim Weed 2 violated their constitutional rights. Moreover, even if he violated their 3 constitutional rights, those rights are not clearly established. It is not clearly 4 established that a parent has a constitutional right to obtain a second medical 5 examination, nor is it clearly established that Defendant Week should have 6 prevented CPS from taking their children for a medical examination. Finally, it is 7 not clearly established that calling a parent to inform them that they would be 8 arrested if they came to the school would violate the parents’ constitutional 9 rights. As such, Defendant Jim Weed is entitled to qualified immunity on the 10 claims asserted against him by Plaintiffs. 11 4. Claims against Defendant Jennifer Margheim 12 Plaintiffs are alleging that Defendant Margheim violated their 13 constitutional rights and are asserting various state law claims against Defendant 14 Margheim. 15 a. Fourth Amendment Unreasonable Seizure 16 Plaintiffs alleged Defendant Margheim violated their Fourth Amendment 17 rights against unreasonable seizure. 18 It is undisputed that Defendant Margheim interviewed L.C. outside the 19 present of her parents. While an argument could be made that L.C. has Fourth 20 Amendment rights to be free from interrogations at school by police officers, her 21 parents do not. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs were able to convince the Court that 22 they have a Fourth Amendment right with respect to their child’s interrogation at 23 school, that right is not clearly established under Supreme Court and Ninth 24 Circuit law existing at the time of the alleged act. See Rabinovitz v. City of Los 25 Angeles, 287 F.Supp.3d 933, 947 (9th Cir. 2018) (reviewing caselaw and 26 determining that “law enforcement’s authority to detain and interview—in a 27 private area on a school campus—a minor who is a suspected victim of child 28 abuse, without a warrant or court order or presence of exigent circumstances, is 1 undecided.”). As such, Defendant Margheim is entitled to qualified immunity on 2 this claim. 3 b. Substantive Due Process – Decision to Take Children into 4 Protective Custody 5 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Margheim violated their substantive due 6 process rights by taking the children into protective custody 7 Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live 8 together without governmental interference. Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 , 9 1136 (9th Cir. 2000). “That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the 10 Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that parents and children will not be 11 separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency.” Id. 12 “Officials may remove a child from the custody of its parent without prior 13 judicial authorization only if the information they possess at the time of the 14 seizure is such as provides reasonable cause to believe that the child is in 15 imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is 16 reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.” Id. “Serious allegations of 17 abuse that have been investigated and corroborated usually give rise to a 18 ‘reasonable inference of imminent danger sufficient to justify taking children into 19 temporary custody’ if they might again be beaten or molested during the time it 20 would take to get a warrant.” Rogers v. Cnty of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 , 21 1294–95 (9th Cir. 2007). 22 A reasonable jury would not find that Defendant Margheim violated 23 Plaintiffs’ due process rights. On the one hand, the school officials permitted L.C. 24 to return to the home on December 7, 2016, and when she returned to school the 25 next day, there was no reports of additional bruising that would evidence further 26 abuse, suggesting that L.C. may not have been in imminent danger of serious 27 bodily injury. On the other hand, on December 8, 2016, Office Shull learned 28 from V.C. that her father had hit her the previous night. ECF No. 53. This is 1 direct evidence that if the children were returned to the home, they were in 2 imminent danger of serious bodily injury at the hands of Plaintiff Roy Cheesman. 3 A reasonable jury could only come to one conclusion, namely, that there was 4 imminent danger of serious bodily injury and removing the children from the 5 home was reasonably necessary. As such, summary judgment on this claim is 6 appropriate. 7 c. First Amendment 8 Plaintiffs have not delineated the basis for their First Amendment claim, 9 except to cite to Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs’ reliance on 10 this case is misplaced. That case held that parents who send their children to 11 private schools manifest a subjective expectation of privacy in the premises of the 12 school. Id. at 512. Case law has not identified a subjective expectation of privacy 13 in the premises of a public school. Moreover, to the extent that parents have 14 reasonable expectation of privacy that their children’s picture will not be taken at 15 school without their consent, such a right was not clearly established at the time 16 Defendant Margheim took L.C.’s picture. As such, Defendant Margheim is 17 entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. 18 d. False Accusations 19 Plaintiffs argue Defendant Margheim made false accusations against 20 Plaintiff Roy Cheesman. At best, Plaintiffs have provided self-serving denials of 21 what L.C. told Defendant Margheim. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were not 22 present during the interview. The transcript reveals that L.C. gave conflicting 23 accounts of how she received the black eye. Also, it is undisputed that L.C. had a 24 black eye and the only question was how she got it. It was reasonable for 25 Defendant Margheim to rely on the statements made by L.C., V.C. and I.C. to 26 conclude that it was probable that Plaintiff Roy Cheesman had hit L.C. hard 27 enough to give her a black eye. 28 // 1 e. Negligent Investigation 2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Margheim conducted a negligent 3 investigation into how L.C. obtained her black eye. Washington law imposes a 4 duty to investigate child abuse in limited circumstances. Rodriguez v. Perez, 99 5 Wash. App. 439, 443 (2000); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.050 . “By 6 specifically including parents, custodians, and guardians of children ‘within the 7 class of persons who are foreseeably harmed by a negligent investigation into 8 allegations of child abuse[,]’ the Legislature has recognized a duty to the parent 9 as well as the child in conducting child abuse investigations.” Id. (citation 10 omitted). The Rodriguez court concluded that parents could bring a negligent 11 investigation claim against law enforcement. Id. at 449 (“Holding law 12 enforcement agencies to a standard of negligence in child abuse investigations 13 should not have the effect of chilling those investigations. Rather, such a standard 14 will encourage careful, thorough investigations, which support the public policy 15 of protecting children from child abuse while at the same time preventing 16 unwarranted interference in the parent-child relationship.”). 17 Here, a reasonable jury would not find that Defendant Margheim acted 18 negligently in investigating whether Plaintiffs’ children were being abused by 19 Mr. Cheesman. She took statements from three school officials, interviewed the 20 victim herself and recorded the interview, observed the injury and asked for 21 assistance from Officer Shull, who interviewed the older high school age 22 children. She then sought out a second opinion from Defendant Jim Weed. To the 23 extent she was negligent in interviewing L.C. without her mother present, she is 24 entitled to immunity. She has established that she was carrying out her statutory 25 duties, following the procedures dictated to her by her superiors, was acting in 26 good faith and acted reasonably. 27 As such, summary judgment on this claim is appropriate. 28 // 1 f. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Margheim committed the tort of Intentional 3 Infliction of Emotional Distress. To state a claim under Washington law for 4 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the plaintiff must show that the 5 emotional distress was inflicted intentionally or recklessly; mere negligence is 6 insufficient. Waller v. State, 64 Wash. App. 318, 336 (1992). Second, the 7 defendant’s conduct must be “outrageous and extreme.” Id. Tortious or criminal 8 intent, or malice will not suffice. Liability arises only when the conduct is: [9] “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond 10 all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” [11] Id. 12 Notably, in Waller, the Washington court held that even if it is shown that 13 caseworkers may have been grossly negligent in choosing to believe allegations 14 of child abuse and in not choosing to thoroughly investigate the alleged abuser’s 15 claims, their conduct cannot be characterized as going “beyond all possible 16 bounds of decency. Id. In that case, although substantial evidence eventually 17 showed that the allegations were not credible, the caseworkers’ opinions were 18 supported in part by expert opinions of therapists. Id. The court concluded that 19 their conduct could not be said to have been outrageous. Id. 20 Here, a reasonable jury would not find that Defendant Margheim acted 21 beyond all possible bounds of decency in investigating and concluding that Mr. 22 Cheesman hit L.C. and gave her a black eye. As such, summary judgment on this 23 claim is appropriate. 24 g. Libel/Slander 25 Plaintiffs’ claims for libel and slander against Defendant Margheim fail as 26 a matter of law. Defendant Margheim is afforded immunity with respect to her 27 statements in the police report. See Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , [28] 1 601 (1983); see also Spurrell v. Bloch, 40 Wash. App. 854 (1985) (written 2 reports defendants made regarding plaintiffs’ children and condition of their 3 home did not give rise to cause of action for defamation, as the persons rendering 4 such reports, including school nurse, and police officer, were protected by 5 §26.44.060.) 6 There is no evidence in the record that Officer Margheim knew any 7 information that she wrote in her police report was false, or recklessly 8 disregarded the falsity of any alleged statement. There was no reason to suspect 9 that the teachers or the Cheesman children were not telling the truth. A 10 reasonable jury would not find for Plaintiffs’ on this claim. As such, summary 11 judgment is appropriate. 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 l. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47, is 3 GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, ECF No. 59, is DENIED. 5 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion Demand Right to a Jury Trial, ECF No. 57, is DENIED, as moot. 4. Plaintiffs’ Pleading for Court Permission to Respond Defendants’ 8 Reply in Support of Summary Judgment, ECF No. 61, is DENIED, 9 as moot. 10 5. The District Court Executive is directed to enter judgment in favor 11 of Defendants and against Plaintiffs. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 13|| forward copies to Plaintiffs and counsel, and close the file. 14 DATED this 2nd day of March 2020. [17] byt Zed 19 Sfeukeyl Siesta 0 Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 22) [28] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY