Head v. Disttech, Inc et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying Defendants' 76 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and finding as moot Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ROMERO HEAD, as the court-appointed
Personal Representative of the Estate of
ROMEO A. HEAD,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C16-1727 RSM
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
DISTTECH, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by

17 the parties. Dkts. #76 and #78. Plaintiff – as the personal representative of Mr. Head’s estate –
18 filed this lawsuit under Washington’s wrongful death and survival statutes, seeking to recover
19 damages on behalf of Mr. Head’s alleged surviving children: Ariel Head, Arianna Head, A.H.,
20 R.H., T.G., K.H., and J.M. See Dkt. #41. The instant Motions seek the Court’s determination
21 of whether the minors T.G., J.M. and K.H. have standing to recover under Washington’s
22 wrongful death and survival statutes given an apparent lack of sufficient evidence in the record
23 to establish that they are the minor children of the decedent Romeo A. Head.
24
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Defendants point out that the only evidence produced in discovery to establish Mr.
Head’s paternity of T.G., J.M., and K.H. was the following:
(1) that these minors are receiving benefits from Social Security as
a result of his death;
(2) that these minors are receiving benefits from an occupational
accident insurance policy as a result of his death.
(3) the deposition testimony of their mothers claiming Mr. Head
was their father, and
(4) DNA test results finding Mr. Head is their father.
Dkt. #76 at 2–3. According to Defendants, this is insufficient evidence to seek damages for
wrongful death or survival benefits on the behalf of these minors under Washington’s wrongful
death statute, RCW 4.20.010, general survival statute, RCW 4.20.046, and the special survival
statute, RCW 4.20.060. Id. at 3, 9–10. Defendants admit that “[t]he wrongful death statute
does not specifically identify what evidence is required to prove, in this case, the paternity of
the decedent.” Id. Defendants urge the Court to apply the evidentiary test found in the
Washington Uniform Parentage Act (“WUPA”). The WUPA “applies to determinations of
parentage in this state.” RCW 26.26.021. Ways to establish a parent-child relationship include
“an adjudication of the person’s parentage,” but the statute does not explicitly include the

16 above types of evidence produced by Plaintiff in discovery. See RCW 26.26.101. Defendants
17 argue that this is dispositive to Plaintiff’s ability to recover both wrongful death and survival
18 benefits on behalf of T.G., J.M., and K.H. Dkt. #76.
19

After Defendants filed their Motion, Plaintiff separately moved the Court for an order

20 establishing that T.G., J.M., and K.H are the children of Romeo Head based solely on the
21 evidence originally produced to Defendants. Dkt. #78. Although Defendants disagree, such a
22
23

Court Order might satisfy the statutory requirements identified above. However, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is moot given subsequent developments.

24
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

In Response to Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff stated “although we dispute any denial
that these boys are the children of Romeo Head, we are proceeding with the filing of an action
under the WUPA to protect the important and just rights of T.G., K.H. and J.M.” Dkt. #80 at 9;
see also Dkt #78 at 7.
On Reply, Defendants argue that “any attempt to adjudicate Mr. Head’s parentage at
this stage is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” Dkt. #82 at 7 (citing RCW
26.26.530(1)).
Plaintiff has subsequently obtained state court adjudications of parentage showing that
the decedent is the parent of T.G., K.H., and J.M. Dkts. #87-1; #87-2; and #87-3. These
adjudications are dated January 4, 2018. Id. Defendants attempted to intervene and seek
reconsideration in those state court proceedings but were denied. See Dkt. #94-1. Nonetheless,
the state court considered Defendants’ substantive arguments and found no basis to reconsider
its rulings. Id.
Defendants have filed a Surreply objecting to the admission of these adjudications into
the record, considering that they were not previously disclosed in initial disclosures or
produced in discovery. Dkt. #91. The Court notes that these adjudications were obtained in

17 response to Defendants’ arguments on summary judgment, were filed on the docket five days
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

after the adjudications, and could not have been produced earlier in discovery. These
adjudications were not obtained in bad faith, but rather to ensure that there was no procedural
bar for the Court to conclude what is otherwise obvious from the record—that T.G., K.H., and
J.M are the children of the decedent. The delay was thus substantially justified. While there
may have been a more procedurally appropriate method for Plaintiff to present this evidence to
the Court, Defendants raise no valid argument for striking this evidence, and the Court
concludes that good cause exists to consider it. Any delay or procedural error by Plaintiff did
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

not unduly prejudice Defendants, given that the adjudications were put on the record prior to
the close of discovery, see Dkt. #68, and Defendants were put on notice that Plaintiff would
attempt to obtain this evidence prior to the dispositive motion deadline, see Dkts. #25 and #80
at 9. Defendants have had an opportunity to respond to this evidence with procedural and
substantive arguments. See Dkts. #82 and #91.
The Court finds that Plaintiff now has the necessary evidence of parentage to satisfy
Washington State’s wrongful death and survival statutes. This is sufficient to deny Defendants’
Motion. Defendants’ statute of limitations and standing arguments related to the adjudications,
see Dkt. #91 at 4, are not properly before this Court. The Court concludes that it need not
address Plaintiff’s arguments in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, having concluded
that the adjudications above are sufficient evidence of parentage.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Defendants' Motion is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED AS
MOOT for the reasons stated above. All other issues brought up in the Motions, including
requests to strike evidence not cited above, are moot given the Court’s ruling.

16
17 DATED this 13 day of February, 2018.
18
19
20
21

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4