Whiting et al v. Hogan et al

Filing 162

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' claims of (1) negligent hiring; (2) negligent supervision; and (3) negligent entrustment are dismissed from Counts Two and Three of this action, (Doc. 1-1, Compl. at 813; Doc. 21, Amend. Compl.). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/28/13. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV-12-8039-PCT-GMS

Larry Whiting and Leroy Whiting,

10

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11

vs.

12

Dana A. Hogan; Mayflower Transit, LLC;
and Clark Moving and Storage, Inc.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

16

(Doc. 155.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in

17

part.1
DISCUSSION

18
19

Defendants Clark Moving and Storage Inc. and Mayflower Transit LLC move for

20

partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims of (1) negligent hiring; (2) negligent

21

supervision; and (3) negligent entrustment. (See Doc. 1-1, Compl. at 8–13; Doc. 21,

22

Amend. Compl.) Defendants contend that these claims are duplicative of Plaintiffs’

23

vicarious liability claims and would allow for a double recovery. Defendants do not

24

dispute that vicarious liability applies to them for Defendant Hogan’s actions while

25

driving at the time of the subject accident. (Doc. 156, DSOF ¶ 5.) In their Response,

26
1

27
28

The Parties’ requests for oral argument are denied because they have had an
adequate opportunity to discuss the law and evidence, and oral argument will not aid the
Court’s decision. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d
724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

1

Plaintiffs stipulate to dismissal of these claims. (Doc. 157 at 1.)

2

The Parties dispute whether Defendants should be awarded costs as the prevailing

3

parties on these claims. The Court will not award costs to either Party until the underlying

4

claims are adjudicated and liability is determined.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

6

Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ claims of (1) negligent hiring;

7

(2) negligent supervision; and (3) negligent entrustment are dismissed from Counts Two

8

and Three of this action, (Doc. 1-1, Compl. at 8–13; Doc. 21, Amend. Compl.).

9

Dated this 28th day of August, 2013.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-