Rebik v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

── Rebik v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SCOTT REBIK, No. 25-1542 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:24-cv-02252-CDS-DJA v. MEMORANDUM* LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; MICAH BALMORES; RICHARD ZAVALA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Rebik (“Plaintiff”) was arrested and charged with battery and assault in October 2023 after the police received a report that he had tried * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). to hit an employee of a car painting business with his pickup truck. The charges were later dismissed. Plaintiff then sued the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) and the two arresting officers (the “Officers”) (collectively, “Defendants”). In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Officers and LVMPD, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the Officers arrested him without probable cause. Plaintiff also asserted state-law tort claims for false imprisonment and negligent supervision based on the allegedly unlawful arrest. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting as true all plausible factual allegations in the complaint. Holt v. Cnty. of Orange, 91 F.4th 1013, 1017 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). We affirm. 1. The district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against the Officers. “To prevail on [a] § 1983 claim for false arrest,” a plaintiff must demonstrate “that there was no probable cause to arrest him.” Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 978 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted). “Probable cause to arrest exists when there is a fair probability or substantial chance of criminal activity by the arrestee based on the totality of the circumstances known to the 2 25-1542 officers at the time of arrest.” Vanegas v. City of Pasadena, 46 F.4th 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s own factual allegations established that probable cause existed for his arrest. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was involved in a “verbal altercation” with the owner and employees of the car painting business regarding “problems with the work they were supposed to perform on [his] truck.” He further alleged that shortly after this dispute, the Officers received a report and took witness statements at the scene that “Plaintiff had driven his vehicle in such a way as to impact and collide with the [employee] during the altercation.” Based on the witness statements,