Petersen v. Gillaspie et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 67 Defendant's 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
9

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. C16-5820 RBL

JODY PETERSEN,
v.

ORDER ON SECOND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BRAD GILLASPIE,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Gillaspie’s second Motion for

15

Summary Judgment on the Merits [Dkt. # 67] His first Motion was DENIED a year ago. The

16

Court’s 28 page Order [Dkt. # 53] was intended to thoroughly address the salacious details of

17

this unusual and unpleasant story, and the law applicable to Plaintiff Petersen’s various claims—

18

including drawing all inferences in her favor on a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

19

Gillaspie’s Motion for Reconsideration was DENIED [Dkt. # 56]. Shortly thereafter, the parties

20

stipulated to Petersen’s filing a Third Amended Complaint, and Gillaspie has since deposed

21

Petersen.

22
23
24
ORDER ON SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 1

1

Gillaspie has now filed another comprehensive Motion for Summary Judgment,

2

purportedly based on Petersen’s new allegations and new testimony. The gist of his argument is

3

that Petersen cannot successfully paint him as a state actor, and her evidence is lacking.
Despite Gillaspie’s effort—his arguments and filings are again well-crafted and it

4
5

remains clear that the defense strongly believes Petersen’s claims have no merit—this is

6

essentially another motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order. Gillaspie continues to

7

emphasize that he was required to (eventually, and conveniently) report Petersen’s “domestic

8

violence” solely because he is a police officer bound by the OIDV policy. He even provides

9

expert testimony1 [Dkt. # 69] explaining the importance of such a policy, and that opinion may

10

well be persuasive at trial.
But for now it underscores what has been clear to the Court from the start: a reasonable

11
12

jury could find that Gillaspie acted as a police officer—a state actor—when he did all of the

13

things former officer Petersen claims he did, and he did them for other, less honorable reasons.

14

The allegations in Petersen’s operative complaint are not as graphic as they were, and the new

15

(even more graphic) allegations in her Response may not be relevant to her claims. However, the

16

evidence as a whole has not materially changed.

17

There are problems with Petersen’s case, and the defense has explanations and evidence

18

that might ultimately be persuasive; it may well obtain a defense verdict. But this was not and is

19

not a summary judgment case.

20
21
22
1

23
24

One example of the factual disputes: Petersen’s taking and destruction of the pilot’s uniform “had to be
investigated” because it could constitute “burglary,” but the neighbor’s taking of Petersen’s riding lawnmower at
Steve’s direction did not have to be investigated because it was “clearly” a civil matter. That distinction is not
persuasive.

ORDER ON SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 2

1

The Motion for Summary Judgment on the Merits is DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated this 29th day of August, 2018.

4
5

A

6

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 3