On March 13, 2026, Judge Bernal of the Central District Court granted a summary judgment motion prepared by DGR special “Of Counsel” Deborah Nash. The DGR client was the City of Murrieta, and two of its police officers.
On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff was arrested by a Murrieta police officer. At the time of the officers’ initial contact with Plaintiff on the night of her arrest, Plaintiff was located inside her home in Murrieta. Plaintiff heard a knock at her door and two men announced that they were police officers. Plaintiff was inside talking to another person on the phone at the time the police announced their presence. When Plaintiff opened the door, the officers were standing outside in full uniform and wearing body-worn cameras. After Plaintiff opened the one officer asked Plaintiff to step outside her house. Upon his request, Plaintiff stood outside her door, in front of the door, as she spoke with the officer. The officer asked Plaintiff about messages she had sent to her ex-husband on Talking Parents, an app. The officer told Plaintiff that her ex-husband wanted her arrested pursuant to a citizen’s arrest. The officer told Plaintiff, “So here’s the thing ma’am, you’re going to have to go to jail tonight.” When the officer told Plaintiff he was going to arrest her, Plaintiff said “No, you are not.” After the officer told Plaintiff he was going to arrest her, Plaintiff objected and walked through the open door of her home and attempted to shut the door. The officer was concerned that Plaintiff might be trying to escape arrest or retrieve a weapon. He pushed the door open before it closed and followed Plaintiff into the house. The other officer followed the first officer into Plaintiff’s home. The first officer handcuffed Plaintiff inside her home within seconds after she entered her home. The officer grabbed one of Plaintiff’s arms to handcuff her. Plaintiff spoke with officers for approximately five minutes after she was handcuffed. After handcuffing Plaintiff, officers accommodated some—but not all—of Plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff wanted to change out of her skirt but was not allowed to. Officers told Plaintiff that once at the jail, she would likely be booked and released so that she could return home the same night. Officers told Plaintiff she was being arrested at her ex-husband’s request based on the messages exchanged on Talking Parents. Officers told Plaintiff they had compared the temporary restraining order and her messages and determined that her comments violated the court order. Plaintiff admitted to making the comments reflected in the images of the messages that officers reviewed. The DV 110 order states that, “If you do not obey this order you can be arrested and charged with a crime.” It also states that, “Any law enforcement officer in California who receives, sees or verifies the order on a paper copy, in the California law enforcement telecommunication system, or NCIC protection order must enforce the orders.” Plaintiff was arrested for a violation of the court temporary restraining order under PC 273.6 and the ex-husband’s private persons arrest for her comments.
DGR moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims. We argued that (1) the force officers used was objectively reasonable and that officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claims; (2) that officers had probable cause to detain and arrest plaintiff, defeating her state and federal false arrest and malicious prosecution claims; (3) the officers’ entry into Plaintiff’s home was lawful under exigent circumstances and officers are entitled to qualified immunity; (4) Plaintiff cannot establish a distinct Fourteenth Amendment violation because she cannot demonstrate that officers’ conduct shocked the conscience and her claims are fully governed by the Fourth Amendment; and (5) Plaintiff cannot establish Monell liability because there was no underlying constitutional wrong.
In a lengthy and thoughtful opinion, Judge Bernal granted the motion on all grounds. DGR and Deborah Nash are proud to be able to defend the City of Murrieta, its police department, and its officers. The link to the opinion is here.