Chantele Foster v. Kevin Emberg

── Chantele Foster v. Kevin Emberg ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 19, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-11754 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 1 of 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11754 ____________________ CHANTELE FOSTER, JEREMY FOSTER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus KEVIN EMBERG, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-01275-ACA ____________________ Before KIDD, DUBINA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the district court erred when it found that Appellant Deputy Em- berg was not entitled to state immunity under Alabama law with USCA11 Case: 24-11754 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 2 of 10 2 Opinion of the Court 24-11754 respect to the Fosters’ claims seeking damages against him individ- ually for malicious prosecution. After reading the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order denying Deputy Emberg’s motion to dismiss based on state sovereign immunity grounds. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts 1 Chantele Foster, a paralegal, and Jeremy Foster, a probation officer, were married and resided in Walker County, Alabama, with Ms. Foster’s two minor sons from a previous marriage. On October 14, 2020, on their way to dinner, the couple started to ar- gue, cancelled their dinner plans, and returned home, where the argument continued. Mr. Foster went into his bedroom where he began inspecting his authorized service weapon. Ms. Foster en- tered the bedroom and informed Mr. Foster that the weapon did not scare her. One of Ms. Foster’s sons heard the comment and called 911. While her son was calling 911, Ms. Foster decided to take both children to her parents’ house to allow the argument to cool. Ms. Foster took the telephone from her son and informed the operator that all was well, and she tried to cancel the call. When she started to leave the house with her sons, four sheriff’s 1 The facts in this case come from the allegations in the Fosters’ amended com- plaint, which on review of a motion to dismiss, we must accept as true. See Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cnty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). USCA11 Case: 24-11754 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 3 of 10 24-11754 Opinion of the Court 3 patrol cars pulled into her driveway and blocked her car from leav- ing. Ms. Foster got out of her car, told the deputies nothing was wrong, and asked them to leave. Deputy Emberg, the senior deputy on the scene, informed Ms. Foster that they were not leaving because there had been a do- mestic call involving a weapon. Deputy Emberg entered the house and spoke to Mr. Foster, who stated that he and his wife had an argument, but nothing happened that required the deputy’s assis- tance. Deputy Emberg, according to the Fosters, appeared agitated and believed that Ms. Foster was the aggressor. He told Ms. Foster