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.

Driver v. Courtyard Spokane Downtown at Convention Center

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

June 27, 2019

RECHAEL DRIVER, Plaintiff,
v.
COURTYARD SPOKANE DOWNTOWN AT THE CONVENTION CENTER, an unknown business entity; COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MARCOURT INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-50, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

          SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Courtyard Management Corporation, Courtyard Spokane Downtown at the Convention Center, and Marcourt Investments Incorporated. ECF No. 239. Plaintiff Rechael Driver opposes the motion. ECF No. 269. As the Court finds that oral argument is not warranted under Local Civil Rule 7(i)(3)(B)(iii), the Court considered the motion without oral argument on the date signed below. Having reviewed the briefs and documents submitted, the Court is fully informed and denies the motion.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         A party is entitled to summary judgment where the documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one conclusion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record establishes “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). “A material issue of fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982).

         The moving party has the initial burden of showing that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party meets its burden, the nonmoving party must point to specific facts establishing a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

         “[A] mere ‘scintilla' of evidence will be insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment; instead, the nonmoving party must introduce some ‘significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.'” Fazio v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 252). If the nonmoving party fails to make such a showing for any of the elements essential to its case as to which it would have the burden of proof at trial, the trial court should grant the summary judgment motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

         The Court must view the facts and draw inferences in the manner most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Chaffin v. United States, 176 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 1999). And, the Court “must not grant summary judgment based on [its] determination that one set of facts is more believable than another.” Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2009).

         II. BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of an incident where Plaintiff and one of her direct supervisors, Jason Pedigo, traveled to Spokane, Washington on a business trip in July 2016. ECF No. 361 at 1. They stayed at the Courtyard Spokane Downtown at the Convention Center. Id. Pedigo successfully used a Ryobi scope to spy on Plaintiff by sticking it underneath a connector door between their rooms.

         On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff sued Pedigo, Clarkson-Davis (her former employer), Courtyard Management Corporation, Courtyard Spokane Downtown at the Convention Center, and Marcourt Investments Incorporated. ECF No. 1. Pedigo and Clarkson-Davis were subsequently dismissed, along with all claims against them, due to a settlement agreement. See ECF No. 180. Remaining are Plaintiff's claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 1 at 25-28.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiff cannot provide any evidence as to liability, (2) Plaintiff cannot provide any evidence of emotional distress, (3) Plaintiff cannot provide any evidence as to portions of past loss of wages and benefits and any evidence of future loss of wages and benefits, and (4) there is no evidence Pedigo's criminal acts were foreseeable. ECF No. 239. They ask for summary judgment on each of those points. Id.

         A. Duty and breach

          Defendants argue that Plaintiff has provided no evidence as to liability on her negligence[1] claim because the “only duty Courtyard Spokane had in regard to the connecting doors was to comply with the local and state building codes, and national building standards at the time the Courtyard Spokane was built in 1987, ” which they argue was met. ECF No. 239 at 8-9. In other ...


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.