United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Fred Meyer
Stores' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. # 108.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. # 127. For the reasons
that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion.
parties flout the Court's formatting requirements.
Defendant's citations are almost exclusively in
footnotes. The Court strongly disfavors footnoted legal
citations, and made this clear in its Standing Order, Dkt. #
7 at 4, and in a February 2018 Order, Dkt. # 124 at 1.
Footnoted citations serve as an end-run around page limits
and formatting requirements dictated by the Local Rules.
See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(e). Moreover,
several courts have observed that “citations are highly
relevant in a legal brief” and including them in
footnotes “makes brief-reading difficult.”
Wichansky v. Zowine, No. CV-13-01208-PHX-DGC, 2014
WL 289924, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2014). The Court strongly
discourages the parties from footnoting their legal citations
in any future submissions. See Kano v. Nat'l Consumer
Co-op Bank, 22 F.3d 899-900 (9th Cir. 1994).
blatantly violated this District's Local Rules by filing
a response that dramatically exceeded the authorized page
limits without first seeking leave to do so. W.D. Wash. Local
Rules LCR 7(3).
parties are guilty of violating this Court's rules
regarding formatting and page limits. The Court will not
strike either parties' briefs at this time but cautions
parties that any further violations may result in sanctions.
point in the litigation, the parties are intimately familiar
with the facts of this case. Plaintiff produced sushi for
Defendant pursuant to a franchise agreement with Advanced
Fresh Concepts. Plaintiff portrays a work environment riddled
with harassment and bullying. Plaintiff is suing for
emotional distress as a result of this treatment as well as
compensation related to injuries sustained when she moved a
pallet jack from in front of a freezer. Defendant moves the
Court to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
supervision, and premises negligence.
judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving
party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving
party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must
affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact
could find other than for the moving party. Soremekun v.
Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.
2007). On an issue where the nonmoving party will bear the
burden of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail merely
by pointing out to the district court that there is an
absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's
case. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325. If the moving
party meets the initial burden, the opposing party must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of
fact for trial in order to defeat the motion. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The court
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that
party's favor. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000).
the court need not, and will not, “scour the record in
search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan
v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); see
also, White v. McDonnel-Douglas Corp., 904 F.2d 456, 458
(8th Cir. 1990) (the court need not “speculate on which
portion of the record the nonmoving party relies, nor is it
obliged to wade through and search the entire record for some
specific facts that might support the nonmoving party's
claim”). The opposing party must present significant
and probative evidence to support its claim or defense.
Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). Uncorroborated
allegations and “self-serving testimony” will not
create a genuine issue of material fact. Villiarimo v.
Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.
2002); T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac Elec. Contractors
Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
following are Plaintiff's remaining claims set for trial
in June 2018: intentional infliction of emotional distress;
negligent supervision; and premises negligence via common
law, res ipsa loquitur, and per se. Dkt. #
1-2 (Second Amended Complaint). The Court takes each claim in
Intentional Infliction of ...