Salazar v. Monaco Enterprises Inc et al

Filing 206

ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS HEARING; denying 63 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting defendants' 149 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying defendants' 150 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (LE, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

MAXIMILLIAN SALAZAR III,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
-vsMONACO ENTERPRISES, INC.; and
GENE MONACO and MARTI MONACO,
Husband and wife and the marital
community thereof; and ROGER
BARNO and NOELLE BARNO, Husband
and wife and the marital
community thereof; and STRATEGIC
ADVANTAGE, LLC; and STEVE CESARE
and JANE DOE CESARE, Husband and
wife and the marital community
thereof,
Defendants.

17

)
)
NO. CV-12-0186-LRS
)
) ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
) MOTIONS HEARING
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
BEFORE THE COURT, are the following motions: Defendants' [First]
19
20
21

Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (ECF. No. 149, previously ECF No. 47
before renewing); Defendants’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

22

(ECF No. 150); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On

23

Defendants' Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 63).

A hearing was held in

24

Yakima on February 20, 2014.

participated on behalf

25

of the Plaintiff; James B. King participated on behalf of Defendants.

26

The Court having considered the oral and written argument of counsel,
ORDER - 1

William A. Gilbert

1

enters this Order to memorialize and supplement the oral rulings of the

2

Court.

3

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

Defendants' [First] Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, ECF.

1.

5
No.

149,

GRANTED.

is

Plaintiff’s

common

law

claim

for

wrongful

6
7
8

termination in violation of public policy is dismissed in light of Cudney
v. Alsco, 172 Wn.2d 524, 530 (2011) and the arguments made by Defendants

9

and noted on the record. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims under federal and

10

state law were withdrawn by Plaintiff at the hearing and are therefore

11

dismissed.

12
13
14
15

2.

Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.

150, is DENIED.
remains,

as

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)

well

as

Plaintiff’s

"Handbook"

Employment

claim

under

Washington state law.

16
3.

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Defendants'

17
Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. 63, is DENIED for the reasons stated on the
18
19
20
21
22

record.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter
this Order.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2014.

23
s/Lonny R. Suko
24
LONNY R. SUKO
SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

25
26
ORDER - 2