United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant National Railroad
Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak's
(“Amtrak”) motion for summary judgment on
punitive damages and consumer protection act claim. Dkt. 24.
The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of
and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file
and hereby grants in part and denies in part the motion for
the reasons stated herein.
January 16, 2018, Plaintiffs Daniel Jones and Roya Rezai
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Amtrak
in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington
for damages sustained when Amtrak Train 501 derailed near
DuPont, Washington. Dkt. 1-2. Plaintiffs assert a negligence
claim and a claim for violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW Chapter 19.86, and
request actual damages, punitive damages, and injunctive
January 24, 2018, Amtrak removed the matter to this Court.
August 9, 2019, the Court granted Amtrak's motion for
summary judgment on punitive damages in a related case,
Wilmotte v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
C18-0086BHS, 2019 WL 3767133 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2019), and
granted in part and denied in part Amtrak's motion for
summary judgment on a CPA claim in another related case,
Harris v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
C18-134BHS, 2019 WL 3767140 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2019).
September 11, 2019, Amtrak filed the instant motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiffs' request for punitive
damages and CPA claim. Dkt. 24. On September 30, 2019,
Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 29.
October 1, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Amtrak's motion for summary judgment in a third related
case, Garza v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
C18-5106 BHS, 2019 WL 4849489 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 1, 2019).
October 4, 2019, Amtrak replied to Plaintiffs' response.
majority of the general facts relevant to this motion are set
forth in the Court's previous orders in the related
cases. See Garza, 2019 WL 4849489;
Wilmotte, 2019 WL 3767133; Harris, 2019 WL
3767140. Specifically relevant to Plaintiffs, the Court only
notes that similar to the plaintiff in Garza,
Plaintiffs have “failed to provide any evidence that
[they] will ever ride Amtrak in the future or [have] a
reasonable fear that if [they do] ride Amtrak in the future,
the ride will result in personal injuries.”
Garza, 2019 WL 4849489 at *7. Other than that
failure to submit facts, the Court finds no need to recite
additional facts to resolve the issues in the instant motion.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the
case on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
There is no genuine issue of fact for trial where the record,
taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)
(nonmoving party must present specific, significant probative
evidence, not simply “some metaphysical doubt”).
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conversely, a
genuine dispute over a material fact exists if there is
sufficient evidence ...