United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. Dkt. #44. Defendant asks the Court
to dismiss Plaintiff's fraud claim and Plaintiff's
requests for damages for diminution in value and for repairs
to the subject airplane in this matter. Id.
Plaintiff responds by withdrawing its fraud claim, and
opposing the request to dismiss its damages claims. Dkt. #52.
For the reasons set forth below, this Court now GRANTS IN
PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion.
matter arises from an airplane accident occurring in
Arlington, WA. Dkt. #1. The facts pertaining to the accident
are now largely irrelevant to the instant motion, given that
the only portion of the motion before the Court concerns
Plaintiff's requests for certain damages. The facts
relevant to the Court's discussion of that portion of the
motion are noted where applicable below.
Legal Standard on Summary Judgment
judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). In ruling on summary judgment, a
court does not weigh evidence to determine the truth of the
matter, but “only determine[s] whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Crane v. Conoco,
Inc., 41 F.3d 547, 549 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O'Melveny &
Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1992)). Material
facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit
under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. See O'Melveny & Meyers,
969 F.2d at 747, rev'd on other grounds, 512
U.S. 79 (1994). However, the nonmoving party must make a
“sufficient showing on an essential element of her case
with respect to which she has the burden of proof” to
survive summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Further, “[t]he mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the
plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251.
Plaintiff's Fraud Claim
first moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for
actual or constructive fraud under North Dakota law. Dkt. #44
at 9-12. In response, Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn
that claim. Dkt. #52 at 1. Accordingly, Defendant's
motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action
for fraud, and that claim is now DISMISSED.
next moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for diminution
in value and repair costs damages. Dkt. #44 at 12-14. For the
reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is granted in
part and denied in part.