Romstad

Romstad v. Contra Costa County

Good Law
41 F. App'x 43
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 1, 2002No. 01-16682; D.C. No. CV-00-00789-PJHCalifornia790 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arne and Rhonda Romstad, on their own behalf and on behalf of their daughter, Melysa, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in their action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , various California laws and the federal and California constitutions based on the defendants’ alleged retaliation for the Romstads’ complaints about an alleged county adoption policy.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court applied the relevant substantive law. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

The Romstads argue that the district court erred in concluding that their § 1983 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (1) Melysa’s removal. With regard to the Romstads’ cause of action concerning Melysa’s removal from their home, the statute of limitations was triggered upon Melysa’s return to their home on December 21, 1998. Because the Romstads did not file this action until…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.