Evans v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 April 2022
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:19-CV-826 JLT BAM
• Citation: 598 F.Supp.3d 907
• Parties: Lewis D. EVANS, and Carla S. Evans, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

598 F.Supp.3d 907

Lewis D. EVANS, and Carla S. Evans, Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-CV-826 JLT BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed April 12, 2022

Brian C. Leighton, Law Offices of Brian C. Leighton, Clovis, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Philip A. Scarborough, Office of the United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Jennifer L. Thurston, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Lewis Evans and Carla Evans filed a complaint, on June 13, 2019, seeking recovery for property damage to their Kings Canyon Lodge located in the Sierra National Forest.(Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 1, 8.)The property damage resulted from a wildfire, known as the Rough Fire.(Id. )Plaintiffs claim the United States Forest Service acted negligently in the efforts to contain and suppress the Rough Fire and seek recovery under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, et seq.

On September 16, 2019, the Government responded that the discretionary function exception bars recovery and raises questions of subject matter jurisdiction.(Doc. 8at 7.)The parties conducted discovery limited to the discretionary function exception.(SeeDoc. 12at 1-2.)The Government then filed the instant motion for summary judgment on subject matter jurisdiction on July 23, 2021.(Doc. 28.)For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED .

I.BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.Plaintiffs initiated a suit against the Government under the FTCA, alleging the Forest Service acted negligently during its response to the Rough Fire.(Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.)In July 2015, California experienced an extended period of drought which caused significant tree mortality and an intense wildfire season.(Doc. 31 at ¶¶ 4-5.)The Rough Fire commenced in July 2015 in the Sierra National Forest.(Id.at ¶¶ 9-10.)Plaintiffs owned the Kings Canyon Lodge in the Sierra National Forest, located at a bend in Highway 180, near the 10-Mile Creek.(Id.at ¶ 1.)The Rough Fire burned more than 140,000 acres before it was contained in September 2015.(Id.at ¶ 12.)

The Forest Service deployed a variety of efforts in attempts to suppress the Rough Fire.The parties dispute the extent and adequacy of those efforts to prevent the fire from spreading to the Kings Canyon Lodge.The Government contends hand crews and bulldozers constructed fire lines to the north and east of the Plaintiffs’ property in early August 2015.¹(Doc. 31 at ¶ 18.)Plaintiffs maintain that the Forest Service did not properly construct hand and dozer lines and did not tie them to the road.(Id. )Plaintiffs also allege the Incident Action Plans ("IAP") directed firefighters to complete "fire lines, dozer lines and prep the buildings" at the Kings Canyon Lodge.(Doc. 30at 3-4, (EvansDecl. at ¶ 5).)The parties agree the firefighters could not complete at least one dozer line behind the house at Kings Canyon Lodge because the hill on the property was too steep for a bulldozer to traverse safely.(Doc. 31 at ¶ 50.)

Although the parties dispute the cause of the spread of the Rough Fire, they agree it spread near the parameter of the Kings Canyon Lodge on August 18, 2015.(Doc. 31 at ¶¶ 23-24.)The Forest Service deployed approximately 2,000 firefighting personnel to contain the spread.(Id.at ¶ 27.)For safety concerns, firefighting personnel eventually retreated from the Kings Canyon Lodge, unable to prevent the Rough Fire from burning across Plaintiffs’ property.(Id.at ¶ 45.)

Plaintiffs brought suit under the FTCA to recover for the loss caused by the Rough Fire, claiming property damages of $2,849,090.45.(Doc. 1 at ¶ 4.)Plaintiffs argue the Forest Service acted negligently in its efforts to contain the Rough Fire because it failed to carry out directives from the daily IAPs and the Wildland Fire Incident Management Field Guide (PMS 210)("Wildland Field Guide").(Id.at ¶¶ 13-16.)Plaintiffs allege the IAPs and Wildland Field Guide required the Forest Service to build contingency fire break lines, prepare structures, construct dozer lines to the east and south of the Kings Canyon Lodge, tie the dozer lines to the adjacent highway, call for "air attacks" from nearby helicopters carrying water, and enlist the assistance of the State of California Cal-Fire service.(Id. )Plaintiffs argue the failure to perform these actions caused the Rough Fire to spread and damage their property.(Id.at ¶ 32.)

In answering the complaint, the Government argues that regardless of whether the Forest Service personnel acted negligently, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because sovereign immunity shields the challenged conduct under the discretionary function exception.(Doc. 8at 7.)Under the FTCA, whether the discretionary function exception applies is a threshold issue.Parker v. United States , 500 Fed. App'x 630, 631 (9th Cir. 2012).The Court, therefore, allowed the parties to proceed with limited discovery to address the jurisdictional issues related only to the discretionary function exception of the FTCA.(Doc. 12at 1-2.)The Government moved for summary judgment on July 23, 2021.(Doc. 28.)Plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 6, 2021(Doc. 29), and the Government subsequently filed its reply (Doc. 32) and objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence (Doc. 33).

In their briefings, the parties include various factual and legal arguments related to the ultimate issue of negligence.Because the Court limited discovery to the jurisdiction question under the discretionary function exception, the Court only addresses those arguments properly before the Court on this motion for summary judgment.

II.LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).In addition, Rule 56 allows a court to grant summary adjudication, or partial summary judgment, when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a particular claim or portion of that claim.Id.;see alsoLies v. Farrell Lines, Inc. , 641 F.2d 765, 769 n.3(9th Cir.1981)(" Rule 56 authorizes a summary adjudication that will often fall short of a final determination, even of a single claim ...")(internal quotation marks, citation omitted).

The "purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial."Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986)(citation omitted).Summary judgment should be entered "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial."Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).The moving party bears the "initial responsibility" of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.An issue of fact is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party, and a fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986);see alsoWool v. Tandem Computers, Inc. , 818 F.2d 1411, 1436(9th Cir.1987).A party demonstrates summary judgment is appropriate by "informing the district court of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548(quotingFed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ).

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to present specific facts that show genuine issue of a material fact exists.Fed R. Civ. P. 56(e);Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348.An opposing party"must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348.The party must tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that a factual dispute exits.Id. at 586 n.11, 106 S.Ct. 1348;Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).Further, the opposing party is not required to establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor; it is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial."T.W. Electrical Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc. , 809 F.2d 626, 630(9th Cir.1987).However, "failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

The Court must apply standards consistent with Rule 56 to determine whether the moving party demonstrated there is no genuine issue of material fact and judgment is appropriate as a matter of law.Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc. , 983 F.2d 943, 950(9th Cir.1993).In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court can only consider admissible evidence.Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 773(9th Cir.2002)(citingFed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc. , 854 F.2d 1179, 1181(9th Cir.1988) ).Further, evidence must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" and "all justifiable inferences" must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.Orr , 285 F.3d at 772;Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc. , 198 F.3d 1130, 1134(9th Cir.2000).

III.EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

On a motion for summary judgment...