Kraus v. KAR Auction Services, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER Granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk Shall Enter Judgment Accordingly and Close the Case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/23/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CORY KRAUS,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:14-CV-717 JCM (PAL)
ORDER

v.
ADESA NEVADA, LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant ADESA Nevada, LLC’s (hereinafter “ADESA”)

14

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 29). Plaintiff Cory Kraus (hereinafter “Kraus”) responded

15

(doc. # 31), and ADESA replied (doc. # 32).

16

I.

Background

17

This matter involves a negligence claim that arises out of a security guard’s contact with

18

an electrified fence. (Doc. # 31 at 2). ADESA is a company that stores and auctions vehicles. (Doc.

19

# 1-1 at 4; Kraus depo at 33:6-12). ADESA had contracted with U.S. Security Associates

20

(hereinafter “U.S. Security”) as an independent contractor for security services at its North Las

21

Vegas location. (Doc. # 29 at 2). U.S. Security employed Kraus as a security guard. (Doc. # 29 at

22

2).

23

On May 22, 2012, Kraus was working on ADESA’s premises and was informed by his

24

supervisor at the beginning of his shift that the electric fence was off. (Doc. # 31 at 2). Kraus then

25

went to pick up the graveyard shift radios offsite. Upon his return, Kraus attempted to close the

26

fence gates but the fence was electrified. (Id.). Kraus suffered serious injuries when he touched the

27

electrified fence. (Kraus depo at 88:11–94:3).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Kraus filed the instant case in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court on March 19, 2014.

2

(Doc. # 1–1 at 3). ADESA removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, (doc. # 1),

3

and discovery commenced. (See doc. # 8). ADESA then filed this motion for summary judgment,

4

(doc. # 29), before discovery had concluded. (Doc. # 31 at 3).

5

II.

Legal Standard

6

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when the pleadings,

7

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,

8

show that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a

9

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is

10

“to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

11

323–24 (1986).

12

In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When the

13

party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward

14

with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at

15

trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine

16

issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests.,

17

Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

18

In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense,

19

the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential

20

element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed

21

to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case on which that

22

party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–24. If the moving

23

party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not

24

consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159–

25

60 (1970).

26

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party

27

to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith

28

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the

2

claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions

3

of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th

4

Cir. 1987).

5

In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on

6

conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

7

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the

8

pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue

9

for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

10

At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the

11

truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

12

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable

13

inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is

14

merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at

15

249–50.

16

III.

17

Discussion
A. Kraus’ request to deny or continue motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.

18

Civ. P. 56(d) is deficient

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (hereinafter “Rule 56(d)”) states that “if a

20

nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts

21

essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2)

22

allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other

23

appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2).

24

“The requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it

25

hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; [and] (3) the sought-after facts are

26

essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home and Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan

27

Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, the burden is on the non-moving party

28

to show that the sought-after facts would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty,

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1

Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151,

2

1161 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001)). However, a Rule 56(d) request will fail if the moving party failed to

3

identify how the sought-after facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City & Cnty. of

4

San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2006).

5

Kraus fails to satisfy the first and third requirements under Rule 56(d). First, Kraus fails to

6

allege what specific facts he is seeking to discover. Instead, Kraus offers a mere list of remaining

7

topics that he wishes to further explore. (Doc. # 31 at 4). Second, Kraus does not state how the

8

exploration of these topics will lead to the discovery of specific facts that will create a genuine

9

issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment. Nor does he state how those facts, if

10
11
12
13

discovered, will thwart ADESA’s legal arguments for granting summary judgment.
For these reasons, Kraus’ request to deny or continue ADESA’s motion for summary
judgment under Rule 56(d) is deficient, and thus this court will deny that request.
B. ADESA’s motion for summary judgment

14

The existence of a duty owed is a question of law, not a question of fact. Turner v.

15

Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 180 P.3d 1172, 1177 (Nev. 2008). Under Nevada law, landowners

16

do not owe a duty to employees of independent contractors when the dangerous condition was

17

created was a part of the work and the danger was obvious. Sierra Pacific Power Co. v. Rinehart,

18

665 P.2d 270, 272 (Nev. 1983).

19

In Sierra Pacific, the landowners hired an independent contractor to construct a power

20

station. Id. at 272. The independent contractor and its subcontractors constructed a cooling tower

21

that was necessary to complete the power station. Id. at 272–73. During construction, an employee

22

of the independent contractor’s subcontractor fell off the cooling tower and died. Id. at 272.1 His

23

widow and his mother sued for wrongful death.

24

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the landowners owed no duty of care to the

25

employees of an independent contractor when the danger is created as a part of the work and it

26

was obvious. Id. at 272, 274. The court reasoned that the independent contractor was more aware

27
1

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Sierra Pacific Power Co. contracted with Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. to design
and build the Valmy Power Plant. Stone & Webster then subcontracted with Ecodyne Cooling
Products to erect a cooling tower. James Hahn, the decedent, was an employee of Ecodyne.
-4-

1

of the risks associated with construction and therefore in a better position to mitigate those risks.

2

Id. Further, the court found that:

3
“[a]s long as an independent contractor is informed about particular safety risks,
. . . there is no reason . . . why he alone should not be fully responsible for injuries
to workmen arising out of the performance of inherently dangerous jobs in which
the contractor has special skill and experience not shared with the owner.”

4
5
6

Id. at 274 (quoting Nelson v. United States, 639 F.2d 469, 478 (8th Cir. 1980)).

7
8

Here, Kraus’ claim fails because (1) Kraus fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact,

9

and (2) ADESA owed no duty to Kraus as a matter of law. First, Kraus fails to identify a single

10

disputed material fact. Instead, Kraus devotes his entire opposition to the request to continue or

11

deny the motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(d). If there is no disputed material fact,

12

then judgment is warranted as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586.

13

Second, ADESA did not owe a duty to Kraus, and thus an essential element of the claim is

14

negated. Kraus was an employee of an independent contractor. (Doc. # 29 at 2). As a part of his

15

duties, Kraus and other U.S. Security employees would arm and disarm the fence. (Kraus depo at

16

41:3–45:12). The decision to arm or disarm the fence was made depending on the shift’s activities,

17

(id. at 46:20–48:13), and was made by U.S. Security, not ADESA. (Id. at 48:9–15).

18

Further, Kraus knew the danger of the electrified fence. (Kraus depo at 65:13–18; 68:2–

19

17). Similar to Sierra Power, the dangerous condition was created by U.S. Security and the danger

20

was obvious to Kraus. Thus, under Nevada law, ADESA owes no duty to Kraus.

21

Therefore, with no genuine issue of material fact, and with an essential element of Kraus’

22

claim negated, the court will grant ADESA’s motion for summary judgment. The court does not

23

reach ADESA’s comparative negligence argument.

24

IV.

Conclusion

25

Based on the above analysis, the court finds that Kraus’ request to deny or continue

26

summary judgment under Rule 56(d) is deficient, and is therefore denied. Because Kraus did not

27

raise a genuine issue of material fact, and since there is no duty owed to Kraus from ADESA as a

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-5-

1

matter of law, Kraus’ claim must fail. Therefore, ADESA’s motion for summary judgment is

2

granted.

3

For the foregoing reasons,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s motion for

5

summary judgment (doc. # 29) be, and the same hereby is GRANTED, consistent with the

6

foregoing.

7

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

8

DATED March 23, 2015.

9
10
11

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-6-