Shavlik et al v. City of Snohomish et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 95 Motion to amend and/or to seek relief from the judgment in favor of Snohomish County signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff Kenneth Shavlik via first class mail)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

LORI SHAVLIK, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-0144-JCC

CITY OF SNOHOMISH, et al.,

13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend a judgment and/or to

16

seek relief from a judgment (Dkt. No. 95). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing

17

and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18

Plaintiff Lori Shavlik was charged with arson after a 2010 fire at her Snohomish County

19

business. (Dkt. No. 81 at 1–3.) Following her acquittal, she and her husband brought claims for

20

constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law claims for defamation,

21

outrage, and malicious prosecution. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 6–7.) Plaintiffs alleged that in an effort to

22

support the County’s criminal prosecution of Ms. Shavlik, Snohomish County, the City of

23

Snohomish, and the Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 4 made defamatory public

24

statements, failed to preserve evidence, destroyed evidence, and fabricated evidence. (Id. at 1–7.)

25

The City of Snohomish and the Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 4 (“Movants”)

26

moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. (Dkt. Nos. 29, 34.) The Court
ORDER
C17-0144-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

found that Plaintiffs’ allegations amounted to no more than non-actionable negligence and

2

granted the motion as to Movants and nonmovant Snohomish County. (Dkt. No. 81 at 11.)

3

Plaintiffs now move, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1), to set

4

aside the Court’s judgment against Snohomish County. (Dkt. No. 95.) Plaintiffs assert that the

5

judgment is based on the Court’s misapplication of relevant precedent and mistaken facts. (Id. at

6

1–2.) Plaintiffs also assert that the judgment should be set aside because of newly discovered

7

evidence. (Id.)

8
9

A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if the Court committed “clear error” or “is presented
with newly discovered evidence.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999).

10

Similarly, a Rule 60(b) motion may be granted based on “mistake” or “newly discovered

11

evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2). However, Rule 60(b)(1) relief is to be provided

12

“sparingly” and only in “extraordinary circumstances.” U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984

13

F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993).

14

Plaintiffs first argue that the Court misapplied the holding in Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem.

15

Corp. when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Snohomish County. (Dkt. No. 95 at 2) (citing

16

545 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2008)). In Abagninin, the Ninth Circuit held that a nonmoving defendant

17

in a similar position to a moving defendant could be dismissed based on a movant’s motion, even

18

if the nonmoving defendant had not yet been served. 545 F.3d at 743. Plaintiffs distinguish

19

Abagninin from this case on the basis that the nonmoving defendant in Abagninin had not yet

20

appeared, whereas Snohomish County had. (Dkt. Nos. 95 at 2, 98 at 1.) But this distinction does

21

not warrant a different outcome. The critical issue is whether dismissal of a nonmoving

22

defendant would increase the risk of error by shortcutting the adversarial development of facts

23

and law. See Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir.

24

1995) (dismissing all claims against a defendant based on a motion for summary judgment

25

brought by another defendant). Dismissal here would not increase the risk of error because

26

Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are indistinguishable against the County and City. (See Dkt. No. 81
ORDER
C17-0144-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

at 3 n.1, 11 n.5) (describing the shared law enforcement arrangement between the County and

2

City); (Dkt. No. 40 at 8) (describing Defendants as a “seamless prosecution team”). The Court

3

did not misapply Abagninin.

4

Plaintiffs next argue that the County Prosecutor’s misdeeds are distinct from those of the

5

movants because the Prosecutor’s misdeeds stem from animus generated in a 2009 incident

6

involving Plaintiffs’ daughter. (Dkt. No. 95 at 3–4.) But the only evidence Plaintiffs provide in

7

support of animus allegations is an e-mail exchange from a County legal assistant to a Fire

8

District representative describing Ms. Shavlik’s request for a continuance in her arson

9

proceeding as something worthy of “giggle fits.” (Dkt. No. 95-7 at 1.) This is insufficient to

10
11

support the level of animus alleged by Plaintiffs.
Finally, Plaintiffs allege they present newly discovered evidence. Relief from a judgment

12

based on newly discovered evidence is only warranted if that evidence is likely to change the

13

disposition of Plaintiffs’ case. Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990).

14

Plaintiffs’ evidence fails to meet this standard. Plaintiffs present excerpts from the depositions of

15

two Snohomish County Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, both of whom worked on Ms. Shavlik’s

16

criminal case. (Dkt. No. 95 at 6–8.) Notably, one of the depositions was taken before Movants’

17

summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 95-1 at 3.) Further, after careful review, the Court

18

concludes that none of this testimony is likely to change the disposition of Plaintiffs’ case. (See

19

generally Dkt. Nos. 95-1, 95-2).

20
21
22

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to amend and/or to seek relief from
the judgment in favor of Snohomish County (Dkt. No. 95) is DENIED.
DATED this 27th day of April 2018.

A

23
24
25

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
ORDER
C17-0144-JCC
PAGE - 3