Francisco Arrellano and his minor son S.A. sued Deena Mistry, a social worker with Sonoma County's Department of Health and Human Services, claiming she violated their due process rights by misrepresenting the status of her investigation in a safety plan submitted to family court. The plaintiffs alleged Mistry completed her investigation into potential emotional abuse on June 10, 2021, but continued to tell the court the investigation was ongoing until the safety plan expired on July 10, 2021, improperly restricting Arrellano's custody and visitation rights.
Judge Massullo found that contemporaneous documentation and Arrellano's own deposition testimony proved the investigation began, not ended, on June 10, 2021. "All contemporaneous documentation, and even Mr. Arrellano's own testimony, proves that the investigation did not commence until June 10, 2021," Massullo wrote. The judge noted that Arrellano delayed his in-person interview until June 30, 2021, and Mistry did not complete her investigation until July 14, 2021 — four days after the safety plan automatically expired.
The case was significantly narrowed after the court's earlier order dismissing most claims, leaving only Mistry's alleged false statements in the safety plan between June 10-July 10, 2021. The court had previously found at the motion to dismiss stage that the plaintiffs adequately alleged judicial deception, but noted it could not consider defendants' timeline evidence at the pleadings stage.
The ruling grants Mistry qualified immunity, as Judge Massullo found no evidence she "deliberately fabricated evidence" as required under Ninth Circuit precedent for judicial deception claims. With no genuine dispute of material fact remaining, the court dismissed the sole remaining Section 1983 claim with prejudice.