Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gadd v. South Jordan City

United States District Court, D. Utah

March 17, 2016

MATTHEW GADD, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH JORDAN CITY; SOUTH JORDAN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER JONATHAN CAMPBELL, an individual; SOUTH JORDAN CITY JUSTICE COURT PROSECUTOR EDWARD MONTGOMERY, an individual; ERIN GADD, an individual; and DOES 1-10; Defendants.

          AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

          Jill N. Parrish, United States District Court Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Matthew Gadd (“Mr. Gadd”) brings this action against South Jordan City (the “City”), South Jordan City Police Department Officer Jonathan Campbell (“Officer Campbell”), South Jordan City Justice Court Prosecutor Edward Montgomery (“Mr. Montgomery”), and Erin Gadd (“Ms. Gadd”). The City, Officer Campbell, and Mr. Montgomery move for dismissal of the claim[1] asserted against them under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dockets 11 & 21).

         The court holds that Mr. Gadd has failed to state a claim against Mr. Montgomery because Mr. Montgomery is protected by absolute immunity. Mr. Gadd has, however, adequately stated a claim against the City and Officer Campbell. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Montgomery, but DENIES the Motion to Dismiss as to Officer Campbell and the City. (Dockets 11 & 21).

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         As is required when reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of the following well-plead factual allegations of the complaint. See Bryson v. Gonzales, 534 F.3d 1282, 1286 (10th Cir. 2008) (describing this standard).

         On June 23, 2014, a two-page Temporary Protective Order (“TPO”) was issued at the request of Ms. Gadd against her husband Mr. Gadd. The TPO identified Ms. Gadd as the “Petitioner” and listed Mr. and Ms. Gadd's three children as “Other Person(s) Protected by this Order.” The TPO stated: “Do not contact, phone, mail, e-mail, or communicate in anyway with the Petitioner, either directly or indirectly. TEXT ONLY regarding children and parent time.” (Emphasis in original). It did not place any restrictions on Mr. Gadd's ability to contact or communicate with his children.

         Mr. Gadd returned home from work on June 24, 2014 to find an empty house. Shortly after arriving home, he was served a copy of the TPO by a South Jordan City Police Officer who instructed him to vacate the premises immediately. The following day Ms. Gadd filed for divorce.

         On the evening of June 30, 2014, Mr. Gadd sent separate text messages to his two oldest children. The first message was to his son and stated: “Hi [redacted name], I've been thinking about you a lot! I sure love you and miss you. How are you buddy?” The second message was to Mr. Gadd's daughter and stated: “Hi bug! I miss you SO much! How are you doing sweet girl? I think about you all the time and can't wait to see you! Love, daddy.” Shortly after the text messages were sent, Ms. Gadd contacted the South Jordan City Police Department and filed a complaint with Officer Campbell against Mr. Gadd alleging that he had violated the TPO.

         According to Officer Campbell's report, he “spoke with [Ms. Gadd] about the violation” and “conformed (sic) in the state system that an active protect of (sic) order was in place prohibiting [Mr. Gadd] form (sic) contact with their kids.” Officer Campbell attempted to call Mr. Gadd on multiple occasions but was not able to make contact.

         On June 30, 2014, Officer Campbell filed his police report and screening paperwork with the South Jordan City prosecutor, Mr. Montgomery. On July 15, 2014, Mr. Montgomery filed charges against Mr. Gadd in the Justice Court of South Jordan City, charging Mr. Gadd with two counts of violation of a protective order, a Class B Misdemeanor. The charging document lists Officer Campbell as the sole witness providing evidence in the case.

         On July 19, 2014, Mr. Gadd received a summons from the Justice Court of South Jordan City summoning him to appear on August 4, 2014, to answer the charges. Upon receipt of the summons, Mr. Gadd contacted his attorney and requested that he reach out to Mr. Montgomery to resolve the charges. Mr. Gadd's attorney unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. Montgomery on three separate occasions. No communication occurred between Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Gadd's attorney prior to Mr. Gadd's arraignment on August 4, 2014.

         Immediately prior to his arraignment, Mr. Gadd was taken to a room adjacent to the courtroom where he was detained by a court bailiff. Mr. Gadd was informed that he was to be fingerprinted. Mr. Gadd objected and expressly denied permission for the bailiff to take his fingerprints. The bailiff replied that the fingerprinting was mandatory and physically grabbed Mr. Gadd's hands to fingerprint him. Mr. Montgomery was not in attendance at the arraignment. A pretrial conference was scheduled for October 16, 2014.

         On September 16, 2014, Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Gadd's attorney spoke on the telephone regarding the charges filed against Mr. Gadd. Mr. Gadd's attorney subsequently emailed Mr. Montgomery pointing out that none of the restrictions in the TPO prohibited Mr. Gadd from communicating with his children. Mr. Gadd's attorney asked Mr. Montgomery to take a second look at the case and asserted that this appeared “to be a case that should be dismissed on its face.” Mr. Montgomery replied that he had reviewed the TPO and agreed with that analysis. Mr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.