United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
L. ROBART United States District Judge.
the court is Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s
("UPS") motion for summary judgment. (Mot. (Dkt. #
12).) Plaintiff Mark Centuori opposes UPS's motion.
(Resp. (Dkt. #17).) The court has considered the parties'
briefing, the relevant portions of the record, and the
applicable law. Considering itself fully advised,
court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part UPS's motion for
summary judgment for the reasons articulated below and GRANTS
UPS leave to file a Daubert motion in the manner
negligence action arises from personal injuries that Mr.
Centuori incurred moving three packages that UPS misdelivered
at his home. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1).)
UPS received those packages into "Pre-Load" on the
morning of January 12, 2015. (Norby Decl. (Dkt. # 13) ¶
3.) However, UPS discovered an improper address on the
packages and redirected them to the Exception Capture System
("ECS") station. (Id.) At ECS, the clerks
check approximately 1, 000 packages per day, approximately
200 of which are for Pre-Load. (Id. ¶ 5.) The
clerks' task is to check addresses flagged as incorrect
and, if necessary, generate new address information
"based on information returned by UPS's internal
address verification system." (Id. ¶ 4.)
UPS applied its normal procedures to the three packages at
issue, it would have redirected the packages to the ECS
station because the shipper used a nonexistent address.
(Id. ¶ 6.) At the ECS station, UPS typically
compares the improper address to its CardFile, which
catalogues previously encountered addressing errors.
(Id. ¶ 7.) If the addressing error had not been
encountered previously, UPS performs a web address lookup on
its internal system. (Id. ¶ 8.)
the shipper addressed the boxes to 14034 1st Avenue South,
Seattle, WA 98177. (Id. ¶ 6.) As it turns out,
this address contained an incorrect city and zip code; the
proper address for the intended recipient was 14034 1st
Avenue South, Burien, WA 98168. (Id.) However,
UPS's web address lookup system appears to have concluded
that the shipper had committed the common error of entering
the wrong street direction. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)
The web address lookup system determined that Mr.
Centuori's address- 14034 1st Avenue Northwest, Seattle,
WA 98177-was likely the intended address. (Id.) UPS
printed "corrected" labels and delivered the boxes
to Mr. Centuori's home on January 12, 2015. (Id.
morning of January 17, 2015, Mr. Centuori discovered the
boxes outside the side entrance of his home. (Poore Decl.
(Dkt. # 14) ¶ 1, Ex. 1 ("Centuori Dep.") at
11:22-12:5.) Two of the boxes were stacked against the side
door, and the third box was "in a tumbled position
resting against the bottom step on the sidewalk to the
porch." (Id. at 26:10-13; see also Id.
at 28:21-23 ("There may have been a small gap, but the
door was not able to be opened out.").) Although Mr.
Centuori was "virtually certain" that the boxes
were not intended for him when he saw them, he decided to
move them because they were blocking the entrance to the
house and the sidewalk that connects the front and back
portions of his lot. (Id. at 39:10-40:14.)
the boxes were "very heavy" (id. at 27:24,
31:21, 33:1-6), Mr. Centuori "maneuvered" each of
them into his garage (id. at 27:18-19). He first
removed the top stacked box by creating a "controlled
tumble to get it on the ground." (Id. at
27:22-24; see also Id. at 30:24-31:1.) As he started
moving the first box, Mr. Centuori "felt some pain and a
sensation" in his lower back. (Id. at
42:19-43:9.) Mr. Centuori cannot quantify the amount of pain
he felt. (Id. at 44:9-45:8.) Notwithstanding the
pain, however, he moved all three boxes into his garage
through some combination of "push[ing], "
"pulling, " and "dragging." (Id.
Centuori contends that UPS was negligent by "(1)
fail[ing] to follow its own internal policies and procedures
in correcting an inconsistent address; (2) le[aving] the
packages at Mr. Centuori's home without his consent; and
(3) le[aving] the packages obstructing an entrance to [his]
home." (Resp. at 1.) He asserts that he has
"suffered significant and ongoing injuries, "
including a herniated disc and spinal nerve impingement, as a
result of UPS's negligence. (Compl. ¶ 7.)
turning to UPS's motion for summary judgment, the court
addresses two evidentiary issues.
Centuori's Motion to Strike
Centuori moves to strike paragraphs 6 to 10 of Mr.
Norby's declaration for lack of personal knowledge.
(Resp. at 17-19); see also supra n.3. In paragraphs
6 through 10, Mr. Norby describes how UPS's typical
address correction process would apply to the three boxes
that UPS misdelivered to Mr. Centuori. (Norby Decl.
¶¶ 6-10.) Mr. Centuori argues that although Mr.
Norby lays a foundation for testifying to UPS's typical
practices, he lacks a foundation to conclude that UPS applied
those practices to these three packages. (Resp. at 17-19.)
court agrees that Mr. Norby fails to lay a sufficient
foundation to state what occurred to the packages at issue,
but the court declines to strike the testimony. Instead, the
court treats paragraphs 6 to 10 as background information
regarding how UPS typically readdresses misaddressed
packages, rather than as testimony regarding what occurred to
the packages that UPS placed at Mr. Centuori's home.
UPS's Motion to Strike
to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, UPS moves to strike the
declaration of Peter F. Wade, Mr. Centuori's shipment and
delivery expert. (Reply (Dkt. # 19) at 10-12.) The
court's analysis of UPS's motion for summary judgment
does not hinge on the admissibility of Mr. Wade's
testimony. See infra §§ III.C.3-4.
Moreover, because UPS filed this de facto Daubert
motion as a motion to strike in its reply brief, Mr. Centuori
has not responded to the motion. See Daubert, 509
U.S. at 592-94; Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h) (disallowing
a surreply in response to a motion to strike in the
movant's reply brief). Mr. Centuori has therefore not had
a meaningful opportunity to ...