Ponting et al v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF JUDY WONG AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

MICHAEL PONTING and
JUDY WONG,
No. C 12-06442 WHA

10
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiffs,
11
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AGAINST PLAINTIFF JUDY WONG
AND VACATING HEARING

12
LOWE’S HIW, INC.
13
Defendant.
14

/

15
INTRODUCTION
16
In this action for loss of consortium, defendant Lowe’s HIW, Inc., moves to dismiss
17
plaintiff Wong’s sole claim. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of non-opposition (Dkt. No. 20 at 2).
18
For the reasons stated below, Lowe’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
19
STATEMENT
20
Plaintiff Judy Wong claims a loss of consortium as a result of injuries suffered by
21
plaintiff Michael Ponting on August 11, 2010, when he allegedly slipped on paint in a Lowe’s
22
hardware store in San Bruno, California. Plaintiffs have never married or registered with the
23
State of California as domestic partners, but were granted a “Declaration of Domestic
24
Partnership” by the County of San Francisco on May 22, 2000 (Dep. of Judy Wong at 10:1–12;
25
Int. Ans. No. 2).
26
ANALYSIS
27
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and the evidence in the record “show
28
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

1

judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a). A dispute is genuine only if there is sufficient

2

evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find for the non-moving party, and material only if the

3

fact may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49

4

(1986). In this analysis, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the light most favorable to

5

the non-moving party. Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011, 1018

6

(9th Cir. 2010). Unsupported conjecture or conclusory statements, however, cannot defeat

7

summary judgment. Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008).

Elden v. Sheldon, 46 Cal. 3d. 267, 277 (1988). Domestic partners recognized under California

10

law have the same rights and responsibilities as spouses. Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5. Defendant

11
For the Northern District of California

Loss of consortium can exist when a negligent third party injures the claimant’s spouse.

9

United States District Court

8

argues, however, that the state does not recognize plaintiffs as either domestic partners or

12

spouses; therefore, plaintiff Wong cannot successfully claim loss of consortium. California

13

Family Code Section 299.6(b) preempted local governments from creating new domestic

14

partnerships after July 1, 2000, and recognized domestic partnerships created before that date

15

only upon registration with the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs received a domestic partnership

16

from the City and County of San Francisco on May 22, 2000, but never registered as domestic

17

partners with the state. This order finds that had plaintiffs properly registered as domestic

18

partners, then plaintiff Wong could have met this element of her claim. Because plaintiff Wong

19

is neither plaintiff Ponting’s spouse nor his state-registered domestic partner, she cannot make a

20

valid claim for loss of consortium.

21
22

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. For this reason and those

23

stated above, defendant’s motion for summary judgement on plaintiff Wong’s sole claim for

24

loss of consortium is GRANTED. The hearing on JANUARY 29, 2014, is hereby VACATED.

25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27

Dated: January 7, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2