Hamilton v. Reign Promotions LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

JAMES HAMILTON,
7

Plaintiff,

8
9

v.
REIGN PROMOTIONS, LLC, et al.,

10

CASE NO. C13-5161 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

Defendants.

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Joe Hernandez’s (“Hernandez”)

13

motion to dismiss (Dkt. 34). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of

14

and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the

15

motion for the reasons stated herein.

16

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

On March 6, 2013, Plaintiff James Hamilton (“Hamilton”) filed a complaint

18

alleging personal injuries. Dkt. 1. On June 20, 2013, Hamilton filed an amended

19

complaint against Reign Promotions, LLC (“Reign”), Hernandez, and Darren Andy

20

alleging personal injuries suffered at one of Reign’s mixed martial arts events. Dkt. 18.

21

Hamilton asserts a cause of action for negligence against Hernandez. Id., ¶ 4.1.

22

ORDER - 1

1

On August 6, 2013, Hernandez filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 34. On August 26,

2 2013, Hamilton responded. Dkt. 35.
3
4

II. DISCUSSION
In Washington, the statute of limitations for intentional torts is two years and the

5 statute of limitations for negligence claims is three years. RCW 4.16.080, 4.16.100.
6

In this case, Hernandez argues that Hamilton’s claims are barred by the statute of

7 limitations. Dkt. 34. It is undisputed that Hamilton filed the complaint approximately
8 two and one half years after the alleged incident. Hernandez contends that Hamilton
9 should not be allowed to disguise his intentional assault claims as negligence to avoid the
10 statute of limitations for intentional torts. Dkt. 34 at 4. Hamilton, however, counters that
11 Hernandez unintentionally injured Hamilton when Hernandez was acting to protect a
12 third party, Kerry Hernandez. Dkt. 35 at 5–7. This is a plausible theory of negligence.
13
14

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Hernandez’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 34)

15 is DENIED.
16

Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2