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.

Le v. King

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

April 26, 2019

BAO XUYEN LE, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tommy Le; HOAI “SUNNY” LE; DIEU HO; UYEN LE; KIM TUYET LE; QUOC NGUYEN; TAM NGUYEN; DUNG NGYUEN; and JEFFERSON HO Plaintiffs,
v.
REVEREND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COUNTY; and KING COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF CESAR MOLINA, Defendants.

          MINUTE ORDER

         The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

         (1) Defendant King County's motion for summary judgment, docket no. 78, is GRANTED in part, STRICKEN in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:

(a) With regard to the wrongful death and survival actions asserted by Bao Xuyen Le as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tommy Le (Second Cause of Action), King County's motion for summary judgment, which was unopposed on the subject, is GRANTED, the wrongful death action is DISMISSED with prejudice, see RCW 4.20.020, and damages for pain and suffering, anxiety, emotional distress, and/or humiliation suffered by Tommy Le will not be recoverable in the survival action, see RCW 4.20.046(1);
(b) With regard to any immunity from suit pursuant to RCW 4.24.420, King County's motion for summary judgment is STRICKEN as moot;
(c) With regard to whether King County Deputy Sheriff Cesar Molina used excessive force in tasering and/or shooting Tommy Le (First Cause of Action), and whether any use of excessive force deprived Le's parents of a liberty interest in the companionship and society of their son (First Cause of Action), the Court concludes that genuine disputes of material fact exist, and King County's motion for summary judgment on those issues is DENIED;
(d) With regard to plaintiffs' assertion that King County is liable under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and its progeny, King County's motion for summary judgment is DEFERRED; and
(e) With regard to the outrage claim (Third Cause of Action), King County's motion for summary judgment is DEFERRED.

         (2) Defendant Deputy Molina's motion for summary judgment, docket no. 87, is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:

(a) With regard to the wrongful death and survival actions asserted by Bao Xuyen Le as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tommy Le (Second Cause of Action), Deputy Molina's motion for summary judgment, which joined in King County's motion for summary judgment, which was unopposed on the subject, is GRANTED as set forth in Paragraph 1(a), above;
(b) With regard to plaintiffs' claim of outrage (Third Cause of Action), Deputy Molina's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and such claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Deputy Molina; plaintiffs' outrage claim is not based on any actions taken by Deputy Molina, and plaintiffs have described no theory pursuant to which they seek to hold Deputy Molina liable for outrage, see Plas.' Resp. at 75-80 (docket no. 127);
(c) With regard to whether Deputy Molina used excessive force in tasering and/or shooting Tommy Le (First Cause of Action), and whether any use of excessive force deprived Le's parents of a liberty interest in the companionship and society of their son (First Cause of Action), the Court concludes that genuine disputes of material fact exist, and Deputy Molina's motion for summary judgment on those issues is DENIED; and
(d) With regard to Deputy Molina's assertion of qualified immunity, his motion for summary judgment is DEFERRED.

         (3) At oral argument, scheduled for May 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., counsel shall be prepared to address the deferred portions of the pending motions, [1] as well as whether the Court may and/or should defer ruling until trial on Deputy Molina's assertion of qualified immunity.

         (4) Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, docket no. 144, the deadline for defendants to serve their pretrial ...


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.