Lo v. United States of America et al

Filing 92

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 63 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 67 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR)

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 92 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 6

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11
12
13
14

KA WAI JIMMY LO,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Case No. 2:17-cv-01202- RAJ

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

18

Judgment on Liability, Dkt. # 63, and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

19

Judgment, Dkt. # 67. Having reviewed the briefing, remaining record, and applicable

20

law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. # 63, and GRANTS in part and

21

DENIES in part Defendant’s motion, Dkt. # 67.

22
23

II. BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2012, Plaintiff Ka Wai Jimmy Lo (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Lo”) was

24

driving in his vehicle when he was struck by a mail truck driven by United States Postal

25

Service (“USPS”) employee, Christian Tanuyan. Dkt. # 63 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that, as

26

a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained injuries, had multiple surgeries, and “more

27

than eight years of extensive treatment.” Id. at 2.

28

ORDER – 1

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 92 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 6

1

Plaintiff filed an administrative claim with USPS on November 14, 2014. Dkt.

2

# 61 at 2. USPS issued a final denial on the claim on March 1, 2016. Id. On August 9,

3

2017, Plaintiff sued the United States (“Defendant” or “the Government”) pursuant to the

4

Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (“FTCA”). Dkt. # 63 at 4.

5

On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on

6

liability. Dkt. # 63. The same day, the Government filed a motion for partial summary

7

judgment. Dkt. # 67. The Court will address each motion in turn.
III. LEGAL STANDARD

8
9

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material

10

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

11

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue

12

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving

13

party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no

14

reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. Soremekun v. Thrifty

15

Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). On an issue where the nonmoving party

16

will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail merely by pointing out

17

to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s

18

case. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325. If the moving party meets the initial burden, the

19

opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for

20

trial to defeat the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The

21

court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw

22

all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530

23

U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000).
IV. DISCUSSION

24
25
26

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Liability
Plaintiff filed the pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

27

Dkt. # 63. Having investigated Plaintiff’s collision, the Government does not deny that it

28

ORDER – 2

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 92 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 6

1

is liable. Dkt. # 88 at 1. But it “den[ies] the nature and extent of [Plaintiff’s] injuries.”

2

Id. Though the Government does not substantively respond to Plaintiff’s motion nor

3

contest liability, Plaintiff must still meet his burden to show that he is entitled to

4

judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

5

Plaintiff claims that because Mr. Tanuyan at the time of collision was acting in

6

furtherance of his employer’s business by “engaging in mail-delivering activities for the

7

Defendant,” Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Dkt. # 63 at 4.

8

Under this doctrine, an employer may be liable for any third-party injuries caused by an

9

employee’s negligence if the employee was acting within the “scope of employment” at

10

the time of the incident. Breedlove v. Stout, 14 P.3d 897, 899 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). To

11

determine whether an employee was acting in the scope of employment, a court must

12

consider whether the employee was, at the time of the occurrence, engaged in the

13

performance of the duties required in his employment contract, acting under specific

14

direction of his employer, or “whether he was engaged at the time in the furtherance of

15

the employer’s interest.” Dickinson v. Edwards, 716 P.2d 814, 819 (Wash. 1986).

16

Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Tanuyan caused the collision. Dkt. # 63 at 4-5;

17

Dkt. # 88 at 1. It is also undisputed that Mr. Tanuyan was acting in furtherance of his

18

employer’s interest at the time of the collision. Dkt. # 63 at 4; Dkt. # 88 at 1. Plaintiff

19

has therefore met his burden in establishing the Government’s liability for the collision

20

and is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

21

B. Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

22

The Government moves for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim for

23

past lost earnings and past medical expenses. Dkt. # 67. Plaintiff argues that the

24

Government’s motion should be stricken because it was improperly noted or,

25

alternatively, should be denied because Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to

26

support his claims for lost earnings and past medical expenses. The Court will address

27

each argument in turn.

28

ORDER – 3

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 92 Filed 11/04/21 Page 4 of 6

1

1.

Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Noted

2

As a preliminary matter, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to strike. The Court

3

finds that the Government’s motion, Dkt. # 67, was, in fact, properly noted pursuant to

4

this district’s local rules. Under LCR 7(d)(3), a motion for summary judgment “shall be

5

noted for consideration on a date no earlier than the fourth Friday after filing and service

6

of the motion.” The Government filed its motion on Tuesday, September 14, 2021. Dkt.

7

# 67. October 8, 2021 was the fourth Friday after filing, not October 15, 2021, as

8

Plaintiff contends. The Government’s motion was therefore properly noted for

9

consideration on October 8, 2021. Even if the motion had been improperly noted, the

10

Court would simply re-note it, not strike the motion altogether.

11

2.

Claims for Lost Earnings

12

The Government argues that it is entitled to summary judgment with respect to

13

Plaintiff’s lost earnings because Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to support

14

any lost earnings. Dkt. # 67 at 7. Plaintiff contends that he provided evidence of lost

15

earnings in his response to interrogatories and requests for production. Dkt. # 76 at 1-2.

16

Specifically, Plaintiff cites his initial interrogatory responses wherein he described

17

various stints of work, including work as a salesman in 2017 and as a part-time employee

18

performing audits for a realty company for part of 2018, his hourly wages, and his self-

19

employment over ten years. Id. at 2. Plaintiff supplemented his interrogatory answers to

20

include his prior employer information, type of work performed, and wages earned

21

between 2000 and 2020. Dkt. # 77-3 at 9-10. Plaintiff also provided tax returns

22

from 2007 through 2019 in response to discovery requests. Dkt. # 76 at 2; Dkt. # 77-8 at

23

2-49.

24

At the summary judgment stage, the Court’s function is not “to weigh the evidence

25

and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for

26

trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

27

Plaintiff, the nonmoving party, and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, the

28

ORDER – 4

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 92 Filed 11/04/21 Page 5 of 6

1

Court concludes that such a factual issue precludes summary judgment here. See Reeves,

2

530 U.S. at 150-51. Plaintiff, through his interrogatory answers and responses to

3

discovery, provides evidence of his injury. His prior employment and wages are

4

sufficient to raise a factual dispute regarding whether Plaintiff’s injury resulted in lost

5

wages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (a party asserting that a fact is disputed must support the

6

assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including

7

depositions, . . . interrogatory answers, or other materials”).

8

The Government contends, among other things, that Plaintiff’s earnings in the

9

years prior to the collision “were inconsistent and negligible” and that Plaintiff has not

10

proffered an expert to opine on alleged wage loss. Dkt. # 87 at 4. But this goes to the

11

weight of the evidence, which is not properly considered at this procedural stage, see 477

12

U.S. at 249, and to the amount of damages, which is a question of fact. See Bunch v.

13

King Cty. Dep’t of Youth Servs., 116 P.3d 381, 389 (Wash. 2005) (holding that “[t]he jury

14

is given the constitutional role to determine questions of fact, and the amount of damages

15

is a question of fact”); James v. Robeck, 490 P.2d 878, 881 (Wash. 1971). The Court

16

therefore denies the Government summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for lost

17

earnings.

18

3.

19

Finally, the Government argues that Plaintiff’s claims for past medical expenses

Claims for Past Medical Expenses

20

fail because he cannot produce evidence showing that the past medical expenses were

21

reasonable and necessary. Dkt. # 67 at 10. The Court agrees. Having excluded the

22

opinions of Sanford Wright, M.D., Plaintiff’s expert witness, regarding the

23

reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s medical bills in a prior order, the Court finds

24

that Plaintiff has no evidence supporting such a finding, as required by Washington

25

courts. See Patterson v. Horton, 929 P.2d 1125, 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (holding

26

that “the plaintiff must prove that medical costs were reasonable and, in doing so, cannot

27

rely solely on medical records and bills”) (collecting cases).

28

ORDER – 5

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 92 Filed 11/04/21 Page 6 of 6

1

Plaintiff argues that he timely produced “thousands of Plaintiff’s medical and

2

billing records in support of the claim that [Plaintiff] incurred past medical expenses no

3

less than $248,686.25.” Dkt. # 76 at 7. Under Washington law, however, “medical

4

records and bills are relevant to prove past medical expenses only if supported by

5

additional evidence that the treatment and the bills were both necessary and reasonable.”

6

929 P.2d at 1130. Plaintiff asserts that a treating provider may testify as a fact witness

7

and provide expert testimony, but Plaintiff has not disclosed any treating providers as

8

witnesses as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

26(a)(2)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A).

10

Plaintiff’s failure to identify any expert witnesses or proffer any evidence

11

supporting the reasonableness and necessity of the medical bills defeats its argument

12

against summary judgment. The Court concludes, therefore, that the Government is

13

entitled to summary judgment on past medical claims.
V. CONCLUSION

14
15

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary

16

judgment on liability, Dkt. # 63, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

17

Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. # 67.

18
19

DATED this 4th day of November, 2021.

A

20
21

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 6