Kennedy v. Mohave, County of et al
Filing
97
ORDER: Defendant's 93 Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's 92 Order is revised to hold that Defendants' 76 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part as to Counts 3, 5, and 6; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's 92 Order is revised to hold that Defendants' 76 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in part as to Counts 1, 2, 7, and 8. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 9/18/19. (GMP)
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Kimberly Kennedy,
9
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
11
12
13
14
County of Mohave, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-17-08206-PCT-SPL
ORDER
15
Plaintiff Kimberly Kennedy (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against the County of Mohave
16
and Deputy Mark Giralde (together, the “Defendants”) alleging causes of action pursuant
17
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims. (Doc. 29) The Defendants moved for summary
18
judgement on each of the Plaintiff’s claims (Doc. 76), which the Court denied in part on
19
July 22, 2019. (Doc. 92) The Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”)
20
on July 25, 2019. (Doc. 93) The Plaintiff filed a response to the Motion, and oral argument
21
was not requested. (Doc. 95) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part.
22
Reconsideration is disfavored and “appropriate only in rare circumstances.”
23
WildEarth Guardians v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 283 F. Supp. 3d 783, 795 n.11 (D.
24
Ariz. June 21, 2017); see also Bergdale v. Countrywide Bank FSB, No. CV-12-8057-PCT-
25
SMM, 2014 WL 12643162, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2014) (“[Reconsideration] motions
26
should not be used for the purpose of asking a court to rethink what the court had already
27
thought through-rightly or wrongly.”) A motion for reconsideration will be granted only
28
where the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear
1
error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change
2
in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
3
1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
4
The Defendants request for the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 92), arguing that
5
the Court committed manifest error in denying summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims
6
for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 93 at 1–2) The
7
Defendants argue that the Court incorrectly found that Giralde’s intentional act of shooting
8
into a vehicle containing the Plaintiff could provide the basis for a negligence claim. (Doc.
9
93 at 1) The Defendants also argue that the Court committed manifest error in finding that
10
the Plaintiff’s anxiety, nightmares, and crying spells suffice to support a claim for
11
intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 93 at 2)
12
Under Arizona law, a plaintiff cannot assert a negligence claim based solely on an
13
officer’s intentional use of physical force. Ryan v. Napier, 425 P.3d 230, 233 (Ariz. 2018).
14
A plaintiff may, however, base a negligence claim on conduct by the officer that is
15
independent of the intentional use of physical force. Id. If an actor has in mind either the
16
desire to bring about the consequences that follow or the substantial certainty that those
17
consequences will occur, he acted intentionally. Id. at 236. In the present case, Giralde
18
acted intentionally when he fired his weapon into the vehicle containing the Plaintiff and
19
her husband. At minimum, it is clear to the Court that Giralde was substantially certain
20
that firing his weapon into the vehicle could bring about the future pain, economic loss,
21
mental anguish, and loss of companionship, services, affection, and consortium that
22
ultimately befell Plaintiff, who was the decedent’s wife and who was sitting in the
23
passenger’s seat at the time. The Court finds that Giralde did not engage in any other
24
conduct that was by itself negligent and the cause of Plaintiff’s harm. Regardless of who
25
the plaintiff is, the act that serves as the basis of the claim is Giralde’s firing of his weapon.
26
Because this was an act that was done intentionally, it cannot be the basis of a negligence
27
claim under Arizona law. Therefore, the Court committed manifest error in denying
28
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of negligence.
2
1
Turning to the Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a
2
plaintiff must show that she suffered from severe emotional distress, such as “where the
3
distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.”
4
Pankratz v. Willis, 744 P.2d 1182, 1190–91 (Ct. App. 1987). A plaintiff need not show
5
that the distress is disabling nor must she show any sort of physical manifestation of the
6
distress. Id. By this standard, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as
7
to whether Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing the shooting of her
8
husband. For over two years, Plaintiff has suffered from daily severe anxiety, frequent
9
nightmares, difficulty getting out of bed and functioning in daily life, and daily crying
10
spells. While it is true that some of these symptoms are similar to those suffered by the
11
plaintiff in Midas, there is a stark difference in the harm suffered in the two cases. Midas
12
Muffler Shop v. Ellison, 650 P.2d 496, 498 (Ct. App. 1982). In Midas, the plaintiff endured
13
a number of harassing phone calls from a debt collector. Here, Plaintiff witnessed the
14
shooting and death of her husband. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s symptoms meet the
15
requisite level of severity required, especially considering the unendurable character of a
16
harm such as the permanent loss of a spouse. It follows that such a loss likely created
17
distress of the requisite proportion. Therefore, the Court finds that it did not commit
18
manifest error in allowing Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
19
to go forward.
20
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 93) is
21
22
granted in part;
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Order (Doc. 92) is revised to hold
24
that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) is granted in part as to Counts
25
3, 5, and 6; and
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Order (Doc. 92) is revised to hold
2
that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) is denied in part as to Counts
3
1, 2, 7, and 8.
4
Dated this 18th day of September, 2019.
5
6
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?