Roybal v. City of Santa Ana CA4/3

Filed 6/4/14 Roybal v. City of Santa Ana CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JEREMY ROYBAL,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048496

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00556466)

CITY OF SANTA ANA et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert J. Moss, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions. Michael A. Lotta for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney, and Joseph Straka, Assistant City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents.

Jeremy Roybal appeals from the judgment in favor of the City of Santa Ana and one of its police officers, Ramiro Vergara, after their motion for summary judgment was granted. Following his arrest for possession of marijuana for sale, Roybal filed the instant action alleging numerous tort and civil rights causes of action arising out of his detention and arrest. Vergara was not the officer who detained or arrested Roybal, and had no interaction with him during the incident, but had alerted other officers to the suspicious activities that focused other officers on Roybal. On appeal, Roybal argues there were material issues of fact as to whether Vergara could be liable for violation of his civil rights on the theory he was the one who “start[ed] the rock rolling down the hill.” We find merit to Roybal’s contentions as to Vergara. Accordingly, the summary judgment as to Vergara only is reversed, and in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURE The Complaint The City and Vergara are the only named defendants in Roybal’s complaint. The gist of the allegations are that on February 27, 2011, Vergara and other police officers (who were unserved Doe defendants) detained Roybal without reasonable suspicion and arrested him without probable cause, battering him in the process. Roybal alleged Vergara and the other officers illegally searched his car and fabricated that Roybal had consented to the search. The officers found marijuana in the trunk of Roybal’s car but denied Roybal access to his medical marijuana card, which would have demonstrated the marijuana was for legal purposes. Roybal alleged the officers’ conduct resulted in false criminal charges being brought against him. Roybal alleged the City knew Vergara had a propensity for racial profiling of young Hispanic males and a history of unreasonably detaining and arresting them. He alleged the City failed to adequately supervise, train, and control its police officers, including Vergara.