McCausland v. Long et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 37 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

STEPHEN McCAUSLAND,

CASE NO. C16-5018RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

v.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MICHAEL and ELIZABETH LONG, et
al,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

The Court is presented by dual motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff McCausland
moves for summary judgment on Defendant Michael Long’s “Sexual Battery” Counterclaim.”
[Dkt. #35]. The Long Defendants move for summary judgment on McCausland’s Defamation
and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims. [Dkt. #37].
The claims stem from two Thanksgiving Day flag football games involving members of
the Sunset Bible Church; one in 2013, the other in 2014. Mike Long alleges that in each game
McCausland grabbed and fondled his penis and testicles. The 2013 grab was ignored. The second
was not.
Defendants Mike and Elizabeth Long reported the incidents to the entire Sunset
congregation, complete with recommendations for McCausland’s termination, notification to

24
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 1

1

Child Protective Services, a sexual offender evaluation (including a polygraph) and a warning to

2

the Church’s youth.

3

This tragic tale is steeped in enmity borne out of behavior that was accidental or

4

intentional, misunderstood or “called out” for what it was. Such questions are inherently factual

5

and depend on the credibility of the participants. Such questions fall squarely within the purview

6

of the jury. Summary Judgment is inappropriate in such a factually rich story.

7

The Motions [Dkt. #35 and #37] are DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2018.

11

A

12

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

10

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 2