Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paradise Construction, LLC v. Signature Flight Support Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 22, 2018

PARADISE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard on Summary Judgment

         Summary 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.

         The 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.

         B. Plaintiff's Fraud Claim

         Defendant 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.

         C. Damages

         Defendant 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.

         1. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.