Harrison et al v. DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. et al

Filing 44

FURTHER ORDER RE: DNC DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DNC AND DNC-PARKS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 20, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE: YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
HANTAVIRUS LITIGATION

Case No. 14-md-02532-MMC

8

___________________________________

Individual Case No. 14-cv-0451 MMC

9

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE,
INC., et al.
Defendants

FURTHER ORDER RE: DNC
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DNC
AND DNC-PARKS

15
16
17

On November 24, 2017, defendants Delaware North Companies Inc. ("DNC"),

18

Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts, Inc. ("DNC-Parks"), and Delaware North

19

DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc.'s ("DNC-Yosemite") (collectively, "DNC

20

Defendants") filed a motion for summary judgment. By order filed January 31, 2018, the

21

Court granted in part, denied in part, and deferred ruling in part on the motion, and, by

22

order filed March 1, 2018, granted the deferred portion of the motion.

23

At the Pretrial Conference conducted March 13, 2018, counsel for DNC

24

Defendants asked the Court to rule on an additional issue raised in their motion,

25

specifically, whether, as to the remaining claims,1 plaintiffs can establish a triable issue of

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs' remaining claims, all of which arise under state law, are for negligence,
fraud and, derivatively, loss of consortium.

1

fact exists as to the liability of DNC and/or DNC-Parks. The Court, having read and

2

considered the parties' respective submissions on that issue, hereby rules as follows.

3

In their motion, DNC Defendants argue plaintiffs lack evidence to establish their

4

negligence and fraud claims against either DNC or DNC-Parks. In support thereof, DNC

5

Defendants have submitted undisputed evidence demonstrating DNC-Yosemite was the

6

only DNC Defendant that rendered any services to plaintiffs (see English Decl. Ex. 53

7

¶¶ 2, 5-6), and that, under the Concession Contract between the National Park Service

8

("NPS") and DNC-Yosemite, DNC-Yosemite was the only entity that had the ability to

9

provide such services (see id. Ex. 10). Additionally, with regard to the fraud claim, DNCYosemite, as DNC Defendants point out, is the sole entity asserted to have made any

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

allegedly false or misleading statement. In their opposition, plaintiffs acknowledge they

12

are not proceeding against DNC or DNC-Parks on a theory of direct liability (see Pls.'

13

Opp. at 11:18-19, 25:3), but assert they can establish, under "agency and alter ego

14

theories," DNC and DNC-Parks' liability for the acts and omissions of DNC-Yosemite (see

15

Opp. at 11:18-20).

16

By its March 1 order, the Court found plaintiffs lack evidence to support their

17

contention that either DNC or DNC-Parks is the alter ego of DNC-Yosemite. As to

18

agency, there is no dispute that a principal can be held liable for the wrongful acts of an

19

agent. See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 2338. Here, however, plaintiffs have offered no

20

evidence to show DNC-Yosemite, in any of its dealings with plaintiffs, was representing

21

DNC or DNC-Parks. See Cal. Civ. Code §2295 (defining "agent" as "one who represents

22

another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons"). Rather, it is undisputed that

23

DNC-Yosemite was the sole owner of the signature tent cabins here at issue (see

24

Amended Master Consolidated Complaint ¶ 36), and had the exclusive authority under its

25

Concession Contract with NPS to rent those tent cabins to plaintiffs (see English Decl.

26

Ex. 10). Under such circumstances, plaintiffs fail to raise a triable issue as to agency.

27
28

In sum, as plaintiffs are not proceeding against DNC or DNC-Parks on a theory of
direct liability and lack evidence to establish liability of either such entity on a theory of
2

1

alter ego or agency, the Court finds DNC and DNC-Parks are entitled to summary

2

judgment as to each of plaintiffs' remaining claims.

3
4
5

Accordingly, to the extent DNC Defendants seek summary judgment in favor of
DNC and DNC-Parks, the motion is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: March 20, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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