Nachtrieb v. Cnty. of Orange, G050930 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2017)
Jun 20, 2017OUTCOME: The judgment is reversed on the first, second, and third causes of action against the individual defendants for violation of Nachtrieb's civil rights, and the fourth causes of action against the County under Monell.
OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Stanton T. Mathews & Associates, Mathews¦Nissen, Stanton T. Mathew ... s and Noah Messing, pro hac vice, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Daniel K. Spradlin and Roberta A. Kraus for Defendants and Respondents. Casey Nachtrieb sued the County of Orange (County) and four of its social workers, Brigitt Walpus, Minda Herman, Laura Henry, and Mark Lottman, claiming they violated her constitutional right to familial association by causing her to lose custody of her young daughter, E.P., when they repeatedly fabricated, suppressed, and misrepresented evidence in the juvenile dependency court to make it appear Nachtrieb had caused E.P. to falsely accuse her father of sexually abusing her on multiple occasions. Nachtrieb alleged three federal civil rights claims against Defendants under Title 42 United States Code sections 1983, 1985, and 1986, and also a claim under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of N.Y. (1978) 436 U.S. 658 (Monell), claiming the County's policies, practices, and customs caused the violations of Nachtrieb's constitutional rights. Finally, Nachtrieb alleged a claim for declaratory relief against all Defendants. Nachtrieb v. Cnty. of Orange, G050930, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2017) 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00467326)