Chen et al v. The City of Redmond, et al

Filing 335

ORDER: The court DIRECTS the clerk to enter a case schedule setting the matter for a five-day trial beginning May 20, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. In sum, the court DIRECTS the parties to follow the procedures set forth in this District's Local Rules to request a Mediation Without Charge, concludes that Defendants are not barred from moving for summary judgment as articulated. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH) (cc: Plaintiffs Chen and Lian via US mail)

Case 2:16-cv-01877-JLR Document 335 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SUSAN CHEN, et al.,

11

v.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C16-1877JLR
ORDER

NATALIE D’AMICO, et al.,
Defendants.
Before the court is Plaintiffs Susan Chen and J.L.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and
Defendants Kimberly Danner, Jill Kegel, and Washington Department of Children,
Youth, and Family’s (“DCYF”) 1 (collectively, “Defendants”) joint status report (“JSR”).
(JSR (Dkt. # 334).) The court addresses the parties’ request for “Mediation Without

19
20
21
22

1

DCYF is the successor-in-interest to the Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services. See, e.g., RCW 43.216.906.
ORDER - 1

Case 2:16-cv-01877-JLR Document 335 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 5

1

Charge” as well as their dispute regarding the availability of summary judgment motions

2

and DIRECTS the Clerk to set a case schedule. 2

3

A.

4

Mediation Without Charge
The parties jointly request a “Mediation Without Charge” to take place in October

5

2023. (JSR at 2.) If the parties wish to make such a request, they must complete and sign

6

the “Request for Mediation Without Charge” form, which is available from the Clerk’s

7

Office and on the court’s website. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 39.1(c)(4); see also

8

id. LCR 16(a) (noting that the parties may not include requests for relief from the court in

9

a JSR).

10
11

B.

Whether Defendants May Move for Summary Judgment
The parties ask the court to clarify whether the Ninth Circuit’s remand order

12

precludes Defendants from filing future summary judgment motions. (See JSR at 2-5.)

13

On September 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum vacating and remanding

14

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent investigation for the period following the shelter care

15

hearing and for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) for the same period.

16

(See Memo. (Dkt. # 297).) The court addresses the parties’ arguments with respect to

17

each claim.

18

The Ninth Circuit remanded Plaintiffs’ negligent investigation claim “for

19

reconsideration under the Washington Supreme Court’s newly issued guidance”

20

regarding negligent investigation claims following shelter care hearings. (Id. at 3-4

21
22

2

The court has previously detailed the factual and procedural background of this case and
need not repeat it here. (See, e.g., 12/20/19 Order (Dkt. # 242); 1/22/20 Order (Dkt. # 275).)
ORDER - 2

Case 2:16-cv-01877-JLR Document 335 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 5

1

(citing Desmet v. State ex rel. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 514 P.3d 1217 (Wash.

2

2022) (holding negligence by DCYF that prolongs dependence proceedings may be

3

actionable under a negligent investigation theory, even if a court continues the shelter

4

care placement)).) Plaintiffs argue that (1) the Ninth Circuit’s vacation of this court’s

5

summary judgment order “means that there is a triable issue of fact” and must proceed to

6

trial, and (2) the Ninth Circuit already rejected Defendants’ arguments regarding the

7

impact of Desmet on the instant case. (JSR at 3. 3) Defendants disagree, arguing that they

8

did not have an opportunity to defend against Plaintiffs’ negligent investigation claim

9

under the Desmet case in the district court proceedings because that case was decided

10

after this court entered its summary judgment order. (Id. at 4-5.) The court agrees with

11

Defendants that the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum does not preclude them from moving

12

for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligent investigation claim under the new

13

development in Washington law. (See Memo. at 3-4.)

14

As to Plaintiffs’ NIED claim, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded this court’s

15

decision on Plaintiffs’ NIED claim because it determined the court had applied two

16

incorrect legal standards in adjudicating this claim. (Memo. at 4-5.) First, the Ninth

17
18
19
20
21
22

3

Plaintiffs also appear to argue that the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent summary
judgment motions on both of their remaining claims. (See JSR at 4.) But res judicata does not
apply to subsequent proceedings within the same legal action. See United States v. Walker River
Irrigation Dist., 890 F.3d 1161, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2018); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605,
619 (1983); see also 18 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 4401 (3d ed. 2023) (noting
that res judicata principles “involve the relationships between two separate lawsuits” whereas the
law-of-the-case doctrine guides reconsideration of matters already resolved within a single
action). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ res judicata arguments are unavailing.
ORDER - 3

Case 2:16-cv-01877-JLR Document 335 Filed 07/11/23 Page 4 of 5

1

Circuit faulted the court for applying the bystander, rather than direct, NIED standard and

2

for requiring that Plaintiffs prove an especially horrendous event occurred. (Id. at 4

3

(“Because Plaintiffs allege direct NIED, they were not required to prove an especially

4

horrendous event occurred.”).) Second, the Ninth Circuit found error where this court

5

required Plaintiffs to provide expert testimony regarding causation. (Id. at 5 (stating that

6

Washington law does not require expert testimony on causation where the causal

7

connection is “observable by laypersons” (quoting Berger v. Sonneland, 26 P.3d 257, 267

8

(Wash. 2001))).) The Ninth Circuit further stated, “Chen and J.L. submitted declarations

9

by treating providers that raise a genuine issue of material fact as to causation,” and

10
11

remanded the claim “for the district court to apply the correct standards.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs argue that the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that Plaintiffs raised an issue of

12

material fact as to causation precludes any further summary judgment motions on this

13

claim. (JSR at 3.) Defendants respond that the Ninth Circuit remanded the NIED claim

14

to allow the district court to apply the correct legal standard to this claim. (Id. at 5.) The

15

court concludes that because the Ninth Circuit identified a genuine dispute of material

16

fact with respect only to the causation element of Plaintiffs’ NIED claim, Defendants are

17

not precluded from moving for summary judgment as to the remaining elements of

18

Plaintiffs’ NEID claim under the direct NIED standard. (See Memo. at 5); see, e.g.,

19

Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 325 P.3d 193, 205 (Wash. 2014) (“A plaintiff may recover

20

for negligent infliction of emotional distress if she proves duty, breach, proximate cause,

21

damage, and ‘objective symptomatology.’”).

22
ORDER - 4

Case 2:16-cv-01877-JLR Document 335 Filed 07/11/23 Page 5 of 5

1

Finally, Defendants argue that they should be permitted to argue that Ms. Danner

2

and Ms. Kegel should be dismissed because DCYF would be vicariously liable for any

3

successful state law claims against them. (JSR at 5.) Plaintiffs do not respond to this

4

argument. (See generally id.) The court concludes that Defendants are not barred from

5

raising such an argument in a motion for summary judgment.

6

C.

7
8
9

Case Schedule
The court DIRECTS the clerk to enter a case schedule setting the matter for a

five-day trial beginning May 20, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.
In sum, the court DIRECTS the parties to follow the procedures set forth in this

10

District’s Local Rules to request a Mediation Without Charge, concludes that Defendants

11

are not barred from moving for summary judgment as articulated above, and DIRECTS

12

the Clerk to enter a case schedule as described above.

13

Dated this 11th day of July, 2023.

14

A

15

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 5