Arnett v. Seaside Transportation Services, LLC et al

Filing 120

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 98 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 109 Motion for Summary Judgment; and requesting briefing on potential conflict of interest. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JACKIE ARNETT,

7

Case No. 13-cv-01672-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
SEASIDE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
REQUESTING BRIEFING ON
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 98, 103, 109
12
13
The motion for summary judgment filed by Seaside Transportation Services is unopposed
14
and is therefore granted. The portion of the motion for summary judgment filed by Whitney
15
Equipment that the plaintiff does not oppose (relating to the negligence and premises liability
16
claims) is granted.
17
The remainder of the motion by Whitney Equipment and the motion for summary
18
judgment filed by Shanghai Zhenhua are denied. Each of their arguments depends on the premise
19
that no reasonable jury could find Mr. Arnett's unsafe conduct reasonably foreseeable, because
20
nobody could foresee that a crane mechanic would examine the front wheels from an unsafe
21

location while a crane was moving.1 But there is a genuine issue of fact on this question. The

22
defendants provided a product that had ongoing wheel alignment problems. A manual that came
23
with the product strongly implies that mechanics should inspect wheel alignment while the crane
24
is moving and that they should do so every day. Doc. No. 112-4 at 13. But all parties agree that
25
the crane did not provide a safe platform from which a mechanic could examine the front wheel
26
27
1

28

Whitney Equipment has made some additional arguments for the first time in its reply brief, but
the Court declines to consider those.

1

alignment while the crane was moving. Therefore, a jury could find it reasonably foreseeable that

2

a mechanic would inspect the front wheel alignment in an unsafe manner while the crane was

3

moving, and there is evidence that this is what Arnett did. Indeed, such conduct was at least as

4

foreseeable as the conduct considered in Bates v. John Deere Co., 195 Cal. Rptr. 637 (Cal. Ct.

5

App. 1983), and Akers v. Kelley Co., 219 Cal. Rptr. 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985), disapproved on

6

another ground in People v. Nesler, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 (Cal. 1997). Nor have the defendants

7

presented enough evidence for a court to conclude as a matter of law that the product was not

8

defective. See Perez v. VAS S.p.A., 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 590, 605-606 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

9

With their other pretrial filings required by the Court's standing order, the parties should
submit briefs on the question whether a potential or actual conflict of interest should have

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prevented Shanghai Zhenhua's lawyers from representing the mechanics whose depositions were

12

taken in this case or who were otherwise involved in the case. The plaintiff should file her brief

13

on this topic one week before the pretrial materials are due, and the defendants should file their

14

briefs on the day the pretrial materials are due.

15

In addition, the defendants shall be limited to seven motions in limine in total.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: June 3, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2