United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR
ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment on Amended Complaint.” Dkt.
# 55. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Justin Ismael and
security guards employed by defendant Rhino Room deliberately
and intentionally framed plaintiff Sean Perryman for injuries
Ismael suffered in a fight outside the Rhino Room on April 4,
2015. Plaintiffs assert causes of action described as
“violations of 42 U.S. Code 1983 for defamation,
deprivation of rights and privileges, violations of 42 U.S.
Code 2000a for denial of equal access, and for Malicious
Intent for making false statements that were not privileged
for the sole purpose of having Sean C. Perryman arrested for
a crime he did not commit.” Dkt. # 46 at 1. In support
of their request for summary judgment, plaintiffs cite to
their previously-filed motion and exhibits.
moving for summary judgment, plaintiffs rely on their
previously-filed motion. In particular, plaintiffs cite to
the certificate of probable cause signed by Detective Paul
Suguro on April 8, 2015, in order to prove that defendants
Ismael and the security guards lied to the police officers
who responded to the 911 call. According to Detective Suguro,
the events of April 4th included Ismael intervening when he
saw plaintiff Perryman throw his friend, Matthew Taylor, to
the ground and Ismael subsequently getting attacked by
Perryman. Dkt. # 15 at 25. There is no indication that Detective
Suguro interviewed Ismael or the security guards before
writing his report. Rather, he appears to have relied on the
written reports from police officers at the
the reports reflects an indisputably false statement from
Ismael to the officers. Ismael apparently told Officer Wade
that Perryman assaulted him (Dkt. # 15 at 55) and told
unidentified officers that Perryman had thrown him to the
ground (Dkt. # 15 at 57). Given the security videos, it is at
least arguable that Perryman tackled Ismael and injured his
knee. The security videos do not, however,
support the contention that Perryman slammed Taylor into the
ground. Nevertheless, one of the police reports on which
Detective Suguro relied includes such a statement from the
manager of security for the Rhino Room, James Hargens. Dkt. #
15 at 57.For purposes of this motion, the Court
assumes (a) that the recorded statement is admissible to
prove that a Rhino Room employee made the statement, (b) that
the statement is false, and (c) that the statement
contributed to the decision to arrest and/or charge Perryman.
plaintiffs are not entitled to a summary determination of
liability in their favor. Plaintiffs make no effort to
identify the elements of the various claims they have
asserted or to show that the facts of the case establish any
of their claims as a matter of law. To prove a § 1983
claim, plaintiffs would have to show, among other things,
that Hargens and/or the Rhino Room were state actors and that
the witness statement was not privileged. Plaintiffs'
defamation and malicious intent claims require a showing of
intent that has not been made. And any misstatement of fact
Hargens may have made to the police occurred long after
Perryman was denied re-entry into the Rhino Room and
therefore appears to be entirely unconnected to the public
accommodation claim. Plaintiffs have not shown that they are
entitled to a summary judgment of liability against Rhino
Room or Ismael on any of their claims.
of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' second motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.
 In reply, plaintiffs also spend a fair
amount of time attempting to show that one of the security
staff members involved in the incident, Timothy Heilman, lied
to his attorney about his use of handcuffs on Perryman. The
relevance of whether Heilman placed Perryman in handcuffs is
unclear: it does not appear to have any bearing on
plaintiffs' claims. To the extent plaintiffs are using
the discrepancy to prove that Heilman is not credible, the
declaration submitted to the Court does not refer to
handcuffs or make any misrepresentation about the use of
 The Court assumes, for purposes of
this motion, that plaintiffs would be able to authenticate
the Seattle Police Department records submitted with the
original motion for summary judgment.
 Detective Suguro did not request
copies of the Rhino Room security videos until after he had
signed the certificate of probable cause.
 Perryman has submitted a declaration
stating that Ismael attacked Perryman and dislocated his knee
when he tried to kick plaintiff. That, too, is a possibility.
The videos show that there were at least two physical
interactions between Ismael and Perryman, with the role of
aggressor switching sides. In the context of this summary
judgment motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light
most favorable to defendants, the non-moving party.
 It is not entirely clear who wrote
this report. The author declares himself to be the partner of
Officer Wade on the night in question (that would be Officer
Gallagher), but the report is ...