Ruszala v. Walt Disney World Co.
132 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20672, 2000 WL 33223248 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prevailing defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is entitled to an award of attorney's fees if the plaintiff continues to litigate a claim after it has become clear that the claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or without a factual foundation, such as when the plaintiff's own deposition testimony negates an essential element of the claim.
Facts:
- Walt Disney World Company ('Walt Disney') began an investigation into employee theft at its Ohana restaurant.
- A review of the restaurant's computerized transaction logs revealed a discrepancy in the number of guests served by employee Bill R. Ruszala versus the number he recorded on the register.
- Walt Disney security investigators Phillip McNab and Dennis J. Ramos interviewed Ruszala at the company's security offices.
- During this interview, Ruszala confessed to stealing money from the Ohana Restaurant.
- Walt Disney contacted the Orange County Sheriff's Office, and Corporal Robert Stephens responded to the call.
- Disney security informed Corporal Stephens of their investigation and Ruszala's confession.
- Corporal Stephens entered the room where Ruszala was, advised him of his right to an attorney, and ceased questioning when Ruszala requested one.
- Corporal Stephens then placed Ruszala under arrest on the charge of employee theft.
Procedural Posture:
- Bill R. Ruszala filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court against defendants including Kevin Beary, as Sheriff of Orange County.
- Ruszala's complaint alleged false arrest and conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Beary.
- Sheriff Beary filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims against him.
- The district court granted Sheriff Beary's motion for summary judgment, making him the prevailing party.
- The court then issued an order for Ruszala and his attorney to show cause why they should not be held liable for Sheriff Beary's attorney's fees.
- Sheriff Beary subsequently filed a formal motion for entitlement to attorneys' fees and to tax costs.
- The district court referred the motion for attorney's fees to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a prevailing defendant in a § 1983 action entitled to attorney's fees when the plaintiff continues to litigate a false arrest claim after his own deposition testimony establishes the existence of probable cause for the arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Glazebrook
Yes. A prevailing defendant is entitled to attorney's fees where the plaintiff's action becomes frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. In this case, Ruszala's civil rights claims against Sheriff Beary for false arrest became frivolous no later than his February 26, 1999 deposition. Probable cause is an absolute defense to a false arrest claim, and probable cause exists if a prudent person would believe, based on reasonably trustworthy information, that the suspect has committed an offense. During his deposition, Ruszala admitted that he had confessed to the theft, that Corporal Stephens acted professionally, that he did not believe Stephens violated his civil rights, and that Stephens had no reason to disbelieve the Disney security personnel. These admissions by Ruszala himself confirmed that Corporal Stephens had probable cause to make the arrest. By continuing to litigate the claim after this testimony, and after receiving warnings from defense counsel, Ruszala and his attorney pursued a claim that was patently without merit, violating the standards of both 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Analysis:
This decision underscores that the duty to refrain from frivolous litigation under Rule 11 is a continuing one, extending throughout the legal proceedings. A claim that might have been tenable at the time of filing can become sanctionable if a party persists in advocating for it after discovery reveals it to be factually baseless. The case serves as a significant deterrent for plaintiffs in civil rights cases, highlighting the severe financial risk of pursuing a lawsuit after the plaintiff's own testimony has effectively destroyed their cause of action. It reinforces that probable cause is a robust defense to false arrest claims and that an officer's reasonable reliance on information from private security, especially when a confession is involved, is sufficient to establish it.
