Walsh, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to S.W., Deceased v. Tehachapi Unified School District et al

Filing 49

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on July 23, 2013. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

WENDY WALSH, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No. 1:11-cv-01489 LJO JLT
ORDER VACATING HEARING AND
REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
18
19

/
Pending before the Court is Defendants Tehachapi Unified School District (“School District”),

20

Susan Ortega (“Ms. Ortega”), and Paul Kaminski’s (“Mr. Kaminski’s”) (collectively “Defendants’”)

21

motion for summary judgment. The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions filed in connection

22

with this matter and requests supplemental briefing on the following issue.

23

In their motion, Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs Wendy Walsh (“Ms. Walsh”) and Sh. W.

24

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) may not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander

25

because the California Supreme Court stated in Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989) that “[c]lose

26

relatives who witness the accidental injury or death of a loved one and suffer emotional trauma may

27

not recover when the loved one’s conduct was the cause of that emotional trauma.” Id. at 667. From

28

Defendants’ perspective, there is no dispute that Ms. Walsh’s son’s own decision to hang himself was
1

1

the cause of Plaintiffs’ emotional trauma and therefore Plaintiffs cannot recover emotional distress for

2

the trauma arising from the death.

3

Defendants’ argument is cursory and places undue reliance on a sentence that is arguably only

4

dicta. Nevertheless, Defendants’ argument does implicate a key issue: proximate cause.1 This Court

5

has already explained in a prior order what is required to establish proximate cause in the context of a

6

suicide or suicide attempt. (See Doc. 18 at 12-14.) In short, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s

7

negligence caused the suicidal person to have an “uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide.” Corales

8

v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 573 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). “[W]here the negligent wrong only

9

causes a mental condition in which the injured person is able to realize the nature of the act of suicide

10

and has the power to control it if he so desires, the act then becomes an independent intervening force

11

and the wrongdoer cannot be held liable for the death.” Id. (quoting Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal. App.

12

2d 898, 900 (Ct. App. 1960)).
As the record now stands, there is no evidence that Ms. Walsh’s son suffered an uncontrollable

13
14

impulse to commit suicide. It is undisputed that on the day of his suicide, Ms. Walsh’s son was being

15

harassed by other kids at a park. However, Ms. Walsh’s son did not appear to be especially distraught

16

over the matter and gave no indication that he had any suicidal tendencies. In fact, according to Ms.

17

Walsh’s own testimony, prior to the suicide she never thought her son suffered any mental illness or

18

had any suicidal impulses. And when Ms. Walsh’s son did commit suicide, his suicide note seems to

19

suggest that he fully realized the nature of his actions.

20

Having fully flushed this issue out (something that Defendants, quite frankly, did not do), the

21

Court will give Plaintiffs a final chance to offer evidence that Ms. Walsh’s son had an uncontrollable

22

impulse to commit suicide. Plaintiffs’ briefing shall be limited to 6 pages and shall be filed and served

23

by no later than Tuesday, July 30, 2013.2 Defendants may file a response, limited to 5 pages, by no

24

later than Friday, August 2, 2013. Finally, because the Court finds Defendants’ motion for summary

25
26

1

27

To the extent that Defendants fall short in meeting their initial burden on summary judgment on this
issue, the Court finds it appropriate to raise this issue on its own in light of the state of the evidentiary
record, as discussed below. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(3).

28

2

Evidence attached as exhibits will not count towards the page limitation.
2

1

judgment to be suitable for decision without oral argument, the Court hereby VACATES the July 25,

2

2013 hearing currently scheduled for this matter and takes it under submission on the papers pursuant

3

to Local Rule 230(g).

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 23, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3