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.

Chen v. D'Amico

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

August 6, 2019

SUSAN CHEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
NATALIE D'AMICO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

          JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the court are: (1) Plaintiff Susan (Shiying) Chen's motion for reconsideration of the court's order on the parties' motions for summary judgment (Chen MFR (Dkt. # 171); see also 5/24/19 Order (Dkt. # 170)); and (2) Plaintiffs Naixing (Nash) Lian, J.L., and L.L.'s (collectively, “Mr. Lian, ” unless otherwise specified) motion for reconsideration of the court's order on the parties' motions for summary judgment (Lian MFR (Dkt. # 172)).[1] In this order, the court refers to Ms. Chen, Mr. Lian, J.L., and L.L. collectively as “Plaintiffs.” Defendants City of Redmond (“the City”) and Natalie D'Amico (collectively, “City Defendants”) filed responses to the motions (see Chen Resp. (Dkt. # 175); Lian Resp. (Dkt. # 174)), and Plaintiffs filed replies (see Chen Reply (Dkt. # 176); Lian Reply (Dkt. # 177)). The court has considered the motions, the parties' submissions concerning the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, [2] the court DENIES Ms. Chen's motion for reconsideration and DENIES Mr. Lian's motion for reconsideration.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The court detailed this case's factual and procedural history in its May 24, 2019, order. (See 5/24/19 Order at 2-16.) The parties do not dispute the court's recitation of the facts. (See generally Chen MFR; Chen Resp.; Lian MFR; Lian Resp.) The court therefore incorporates that discussion into this order.

         Plaintiffs allege various constitutional violations against City Defendants, as well as a claim for malicious prosecution under Washington State law. (See FAC (Dkt. # 96) ¶¶ 132-208; 221-40.) City Defendants brought two motions for summary judgment concerning these claims, as well as a malicious prosecution counterclaim. (See 1st MSJ (Dkt. # 106); 2d MSJ (Dkt. # 108); Countercl. (Dkt. # 97) at 23-28.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on City Defendants' malicious prosecution counterclaim. (See 3d MSJ (Dkt. # 141).)

         On May 24, 2019, the court issued an order on the summary judgment motions. (See 5/24/19 Order.) Pursuant to that order-and as relevant to the motions for reconsideration-the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on City Defendants' malicious prosecution counterclaim (see Id. at 58-60) and determined that there was probable cause that Ms. Chen committed criminal mistreatment in the second degree pursuant to RCW 9A.42.030 (see, e.g., id. at 22-25). Plaintiffs now move the court to reconsider these findings. The court will address Plaintiffs' arguments in turn.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Legal Standard

         “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Ordinarily, the court will deny such motions in the absence of a showing of (1) “manifest error in the prior ruling, ” or (2) “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.

         B. Malicious Prosecution

         The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on City Defendants' malicious prosecution counterclaim as it relates to Ms. Chen's judicial deception, deliberate fabrication, selective enforcement, and malicious prosecution claims. (See 5/24/19 Order at 59.) However, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on City Defendants' malicious prosecution counterclaim as it relates to Plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process claims. (Id.) The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Plaintiffs had probable cause to assert these claims. (Id. at 59-60.) The court did not address the other elements of a malicious prosecution claim, including malice. (See Id. at 58-60.)

         To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, a part must allege and prove, inter alia, (1) “that there was want of probable cause for the institution or continuation of the prosecution, ” and (2) “that the proceedings were instituted or continued through malice.” Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 125 P.2d 681, 687-88 (Wash. 1942). Probable cause and malice are separate elements, and the proponent of the malicious prosecution claim bears the burden of proving each. Id. at 688.

         Plaintiffs argue that the court committed manifest error by not addressing “City Defendants' failure to establish any evidence on the element of malice.” (Chen MFR at 2-4; Lian MFR at 5.) Plaintiffs argue that, because City Defendants “presented no evidence on the element of malice” and the court could not reasonably infer malice, the court ...


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.