Page 1
C.A. Revives Lawyer’s Suit Over Mental-Health Detention
Rothschild Says Plaintiff Has Adequately Pled Causes of Action Against Former Sheriff’s Deputy for False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Violation of Federal Civil Rights
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A former Long Beach attorney may proceed with his lawsuit against a man who, while a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, participated in having him placed on a 72-hour mental-health hold, Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has declared, saying that it is sufficiently pled in the operative complaint that the plaintiff’s alleged death threat against a judge and utterances about killing himself were too stale to support the incarceration.
The unpublished opinion, filed Thursday, reinstates causes of action set forth by Jeffrey Olin, now of the town of Pixley in Tulare County, for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a civil-rights violation are adequately pled. Olin’s action is against David Wing, a deputy sheriff from 2011 to 2023.
Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild authored the opinion which partially reverses a judgment in favor of Wing that followed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer’s sustaining of demurrers to all causes in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) without leave to amend. Rothschild agreed with Killefer that a cause of action does not lie based on Wing merely having informed Olin’s former wife and the court commissioner who had been presiding over custody matters of the fact that Olin had been placed on the mental-health hold pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code §5150.
The commissioner, Glenda Veasey, imposed on Olin a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”). Olin unsuccessfully sued Veasey and others and his appeal is pending.
He brought a lawsuit over a METNEWS report on the decision by Div. Eight of the Court of Appeal for this district upholding the DMVO, with that action ending with the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion by the Tulare Superior Court which was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal on March 9, 2020. He sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and others for an alleged conspiracy, with an affirmance of the judgments and orders by Killefer against Olin coming last May 30 in an opinion by Rothschild.
Rothschild’s Opinion
Giving Olin a victory on Thursday, Rothschild wrote:
“We conclude Jeffrey has sufficiently alleged that Wing assisted in placing Jeffrey on a section 5150 hold, and that Wing did so based, at most, on suicidal ideation and threats Jeffrey expressed months prior and an October 3, 2019 amended DVRO order determining Jeffrey should not possess sharp objects….[T]his is a patently inadequate basis for suspecting that Jeffrey was so mentally disturbed as to pose a danger to himself or others—the showing necessary to justify render lawful the temporary confinement in a mental health facility under section 5150.”
She said that “because the FAC alleges facts that could support a reasonable inference that Wing detained Jeffrey under section 5150 without having probable cause to do so, the detention, as alleged, could support a false imprisonment claim.”
Addressing the cause of action for emotional distress, the presiding justice said:
“A reasonable trier of fact might conclude that subjecting someone to unnecessary confinement in a mental health facility—even for a short period—is sufficiently extreme or outrageous to support an emotional distress claim, and Wing does not argue otherwise.”
Olin was released after 56 hours of confinement at College Hospital of Cerritos.
Rothschild said Olin has adequately pled a substantive due-process violation and a denial of federal civil rights “for the same reasons he has sufficiently alleged a claim for false imprisonment based on his section 5150 detention.”
Immunity Ruling
Killefer found that Wing enjoyed immunity under Welfare and Institutions Code §5278, which provides:
“Individuals authorized under this part to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5150)...shall not be held either criminally or civilly liable for exercising this authority in accordance with the law.”
Rothschild reasoned that Wing did not act “in accordance with the law” if Olin was placed on a hold without probable cause, saying:
“We recognize that the FAC presents Jeffrey’s description of his behavior, and that others may offer additional or different recollections or viewpoints. We also recognize that, as the master of his complaint, Jeffrey is free to omit from the FAC additional details and information that, had they been included, might have changed our analysis. We do not intend to suggest that, with further factual development, Wing cannot show that he acted in accordance with the law. But at this stage, the facts as alleged in the FAC and reflected in the documents attached to the FAC, when viewed in the light most favorable to Jeffrey, do not necessarily establish that Wing had probable cause to detain Jeffrey. Yet this is what they must do at the demurrer stage in order for us to conclude that Wing had probable cause to detain Jeffrey. Accordingly, we disagree with the court that section 5278 provides Wing immunity from liability based on his implementation of the section 5150 hold.”
The case is Olin v. Wing, B333857.
Olin was in pro per. Wing was represented by Anita Susan Brenner of the Pasadena firm of Torres & Brenner.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company