United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
S. Lasnik United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Thomas William
Waller, Jr.'s motion for partial summary judgment. For
the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
case arises out of a collision that took place on October 15,
2014 in Kent, Washington. Defendant Ranjit S. Mann was
driving a tractor-trailer for defendant Manney Transport,
Ltd. (“Manney Transport”) on Central Avenue
South. Ex. 2, Dkt. #26-1 (Mann. Decl.) at ¶¶ 2-3.
As he prepared to turn into the driveway of a truck yard,
id. at ¶¶ 4-7, the tractor was hit by a
motorcycle driven by plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 7; Ex.
1, Dkt. #26-1 (Waller Dep.) at 69:23-70:5. Plaintiff suffered
several injuries. Ex. B, Dkt. #28 at 12-14.
filed a complaint against Mann and Manney Transport in King
County Superior Court on October 5, 2017, asserting that Mann
was negligent and violated state regulations and safety
standards. Ex. A, Dkt. #4-1. He sought damages for his
injuries, medical treatment, and loss of earning capacity.
Id. at ¶¶ 8.1-8.5. Defendants removed the
case to this Court on October 30, 2017. Dkt. #1; see
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). They filed an answer on November
3, 2017 and asserted fifteen affirmative defenses. Dkt. #6
(Ans.). By a letter dated January 28, 2019, defendants
withdrew Defenses Nos. 2-5. Dkt. #26 at 7; see Dkt.
#27 at 2. Plaintiff brought this motion for partial summary
judgment on all remaining defenses except Defenses Nos. 6 and
12. See Dkt. #26. Defendants then withdrew Defenses
Nos. 1, 8, 10, 13 and 15 in their response. Dkt. #27 at 2.
What remains for adjudication, therefore, are Defenses Nos.
7, 9, 11 and 14.
is entitled to summary judgment if it “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). “The proper question … is
whether, viewing the facts in the non-moving party's
favor, summary judgment for the moving party is
appropriate.” Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850
F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Arizona ex rel.
Horne v. Geo Grp., Inc., 816 F.3d 1189, 1207 (9th Cir.
2016)). “[W]here evidence is genuinely disputed on a
particular issue-such as by conflicting testimony-that
‘issue is inappropriate for resolution on summary
judgment.'” Id. (quoting Direct
Techs., LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 836 F.3d 1059, 1067
(9th Cir. 2016)).
Defenses Nos. 1-5, 8, 10, 13 and 15
the defenses that defendants have already withdrawn,
see Dkt. #27 at 2, plaintiff's motion is
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
motion included a declaration from Melanie Choi, a witness to
the accident. Ex. 3, Dkt. #26-1 at 21-22. Along with their
response, defendants filed declarations from Rex Miller, a
police officer who investigated the accident, see
Dkt. #30 (Miller Decl.) and Jeong Kimble, who is Choi's
spouse and was also a witness to the accident. See
Dkt. #29 (Kimble Decl.). In his reply, plaintiff requests
that the Court strike Miller's declaration and parts of
the declarations of Choi and Kimble. Dkt. #33 at 2-5. For the
reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART plaintiff's motion to strike.
trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling
on a motion for summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank of
Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)
(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). “An affidavit or
declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made
on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible
in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is
competent to testify on the matters stated.”