United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
SHERRI L. DEEM, individually and as Personal Representative of the estate of THOMAS A. DEEM, deceased, Plaintiff,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant the William Powell
Company's (“Powell”) motion for summary
judgment, Dkt. 231, Plaintiff Sherri Deem's, individually
and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Deem
(“Deem”) motion for partial summary judgment on
Defendant Velan Valve Corporation's (“Velan”)
affirmative defenses, Dkt. 247, Deem's motion for partial
summary judgment on Powell's affirmative defenses, Dkt.
249, Velan's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 257, and
Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company's
(“Ingersoll”) motion for summary judgment, Dkt.
259. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support
of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the
file and hereby rules as follows:
November 20, 2017, Deem filed a complaint against Defendants
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, CBS Corporation, Crane
Co., Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation, General Electric
Company, IMO Industries, Inc., and Warren Pumps, LLC. Dkt. 1
28, 2018, Deem filed a second complaint against Defendants
Anchor/Darling Valve Company, BW/IP, Inc., Blackmer Pump
Company, Clark-Reliance Corporation, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.,
Crosby Valve, LLC, Flowserve Corporation, Flowserve US, Inc.,
FMC Corporation (“FMC”), Gardner Denver, Inc.,
Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell, LLC, Hopeman Brothers, Inc.,
ITT, LLC, Ingersoll, Jerguson Gage & Valve, John Crane,
Inc., McNally Industries, LLC (“McNalley”),
Velan, Viad Corp., Viking Pump, Inc., Weir Valves &
Controls USA, Inc., and Powell. C18-5527-BHS, Dkt. 1
December 13, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in
part Deem's motion to consolidate the cases. Dkt. 52. The
Court consolidated the cases through “disposition of
summary judgment or such other time prior to trial as the
Court deems appropriate” and denied the motion as to
the request to consolidate them for trial. Id. at 2.
February 27, 2019, FMC and McNalley filed a motion for
summary judgment arguing that Deem's claim for wrongful
death under Washington law was barred by the statute of
limitations. Dkt. 69. On April 25, 2019, the Court granted
the motion and dismissed Deem's Washington law claims
against multiple defendants, including Powell. Dkt. 105.
11, 2019, Powell filed a motion for summary judgment arguing
in part that Deem's claims were time-barred under
Washington and maritime law, Dkt. 231 at 9, Deem filed
motions for partial summary judgment on some of Velan and
Powell's affirmative defenses, Dkts. 247, 249, Velan
filed a motion for summary judgment arguing in part that
Deem's claims were time-barred under both Washington and
maritime law, Dkt. 257 at 9-11, and Ingersoll filed a motion
for summary judgment arguing in part that Deem's claims
were time-barred under both Washington and maritime law, Dkt.
259 at 9-11. On July 29, 2019, the parties responded to the
dispositive motions. Dkts. 285, 293, 310, 305, 309. On August
2, 2019, Ingersoll, Powell, and Velan replied. Dkts. 319,
August 6, 2019, the Court granted Deem's motion to apply
maritime law and granted Deem leave to file an amended
complaint to clarify her claims. Dkt. 331. On August 16,
2019, Deem filed amended complaints in both cases. Deem
1, Dkt. 341; Deem 2, Dkt. 92. On August 19,
2019, the Court struck the amended complaint in Deem
1 because only Deem 2 defendants moved to
dismiss her complaint. Dkt. 341.
August 16, 2019, Deem filed an amended complaint asserting
claims for wrongful death under maritime law. Deem
2, Dkt. 92.
reasons set forth in the Court's previous order, Dkt.
415, the Court grants Ingersoll, Powell, and Velan's
motions for summary judgment on the issue of the statute of
limitations. In short, Deem had three years from the date she
was aware of the injury to her husband, Thomas Deem, to file
suit. She failed to do so. Therefore, her claims against
Ingersoll, Powell, and Velan are time-barred. As a result,
the Court denies Deem's motions for partial summary
judgment as moot.
it is hereby ORDERED that Powell's
motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 231, Velan's motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. 257, and Ingersoll's motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. 259, are GRANTED and
Deem's motions for partial summary judgment on
Velan's affirmative ...