Pfaffle v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 16 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1

+

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

TERESA PFAFFLE,
8

Case No: 2:17-CV-0407-TOR
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

9
v.
10
11

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

12
13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant BNSF Railway Company’s Motion for

15

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16). The matter was submitted for consideration

16

with telephonic oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein,

17

and is fully informed. As discussed below, the Court follows its previous decision

18

in Abeyta v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 2:17-CV-0350-TOR, 2018 WL 327283 (E.D.

19

Wash. Mar. 14, 2018) and denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

20

(ECF No. 16).

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW

2

A movant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as

3

to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit

5

under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

6

(1986). An issue is “genuine” where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

7

could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. The moving party bears the

8

“burden of establishing the nonexistence of a ‘genuine issue.’” Celotex Corp. v.

9

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). “This burden has two distinct components: an

10

initial burden of production, which shifts to the nonmoving party if satisfied by the

11

moving party; and an ultimate burden of persuasion, which always remains on the

12

moving party.” Id.

13

Only admissible evidence may be considered. Orr v. Bank of America, NT

14

& SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not defeat a

15

properly supported motion with mere allegations or denials in the pleadings.

16

Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The “evidence of the non-movant is to be

17

believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the non-movant’s]

18

favor.” Id. at 255. However, the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” will to

19

not defeat summary judgment. Id. at 252.

20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2

1

DISCUSSION

2

Defendant BNSF Railway Company moves the Court to enter summary

3

judgment in its favor based on a statute of limitations defense. ECF No. 16. The

4

issue here is materially identical to two other cases recently addressed by this

5

Court: Abeyta v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 2:17-CV-0350-TOR, 2018 WL 327283 (E.D.

6

Wash. Mar. 14, 2018) and Figueroa v. BNSF Ry. Co., 275 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (E.D.

7

Wash. 2017). In Abeyta, as here, ECF No. 1 ¶ 6, the plaintiff filed suit in Montana

8

state court for complained of injuries, see ECF No. 1-3, which, at the time of filing,

9

appeared to be a court having general jurisdiction over the defendant. Abeyta,

10

2018 WL 327283, at *1. After Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), was

11

decided, the defendant challenged personal jurisdiction based on Daimler’s at-

12

home requirement for general jurisdiction, but the court rebuffed the challenge

13

after the Montana Supreme Court decided the case of Tyrrell v. BNSF Ry. Co., 373

14

P.3d 1, 8, cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 810 (2017), and rev’d and remanded, 137 S. Ct.

15

1549 (2017), where Montana’s highest court found Daimler did not apply to

16

Federal Employer Liability Act (FELA) actions. Abeyta, 2018 WL 327283, at *1;

17

compare with ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 7-11. However, the United States Supreme Court

18

reversed Tyrell, finding Daimler’s general jurisdiction analysis applies to FELA

19

actions. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrell, 137 S.Ct 1549 (2017); compare with ECF No. 1

20

at ¶¶ 14-16. Thereafter, the state court dismissed the plaintiff’s case without

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3

1

prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and the plaintiff soon after filed suit in

2

Washington, where the underlying events took place. Abeyta, at *1; compare with

3

ECF No. 1 at ¶ 16. As here, see ECF No. 16, the defendant challenged the

4

plaintiff’s newly filed suit in Washington based on the three year statute of

5

limitations, which – absent tolling – would have run before the filing of the suit in

6

Washington. Abeyta, at *2. This Court applied equitable tolling and found the

7

plaintiff’s suit was timely in light of the preceding events. Id. at 3-4.

8
9

Finding no material difference in the underlying facts, see ECF No. 1 at ¶¶
6-18, the Court finds equitable tolling applies to Plaintiff’s claim here for the

10

reasons discussed in Abeyta, 2018 WL 327283, as Plaintiff has demonstrated both

11

diligence in filing suit in a timely manner, albeit in the wrong court, and Plaintiff

12

only filed suit in the wrong court as a result of the contemporary view of the law

13

on jurisdiction supported by longstanding judicial precedent in Montana – i.e. the

14

external force – even though that judicial precedent was ultimately reversed.1 As

15
16

1

17

limitations began running on November 30, 2017, when notice of the order of

18

dismissal was served because this was the date the “dismissal was fully

19

finalized[,]” so Plaintiff’s claim would still be tardy by four days. ECF No. 16 at

20

20. However, the Court finds the statute of limitations does not restart until the

Defendant argues that, even if equitable tolling applies, the statute of

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4

1

such, Plaintiff’s claim is not barred by the three-year FELA statute of limitations

2

and Defendant’s Motion must be denied.

3

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.

5

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish

6
7

copies to counsel.
DATED July 17, 2018.

8
9

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

time for appeal runs on the dismissal order, which would be December 30, 2017.

20

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed December 11, 2017, is thus timely.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5