Burke

Burke v. County of Alameda

Good Law
352 F. App'x 216
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 10, 2009No. 08-15658California1,230 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

David and Melissa Burke appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to their claims of (1) false imprisonment; (2) false arrest; (3) excessive force; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . “We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo ” Leever v. Carson City, 360 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm the grant as to all of these claims.

I. FALSE IMPRISONMENT: MELISSA BURKE

In California, “[t]he elements of a tortious claim of false imprisonment are (1) *218 the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, (2) without lawful privilege, and (3) for an appreciable period of time, however, brief.” Easton v. Sutter Coast Hosp., 80 Cal.App.4th 485 , 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 316, 323 (2000).

Appellees’ contention that Melissa consented to driving to the station because of “her own motherly concern” fails. See Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 1 Cal.4th 701, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 , 872 P.2d 559, 567 (1994) (finding that restraint may be effectuated by threat of arrest). Melissa has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was confined, because her…

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.