Garcia v. Vitus Energy, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:20-cv-00249-JMK |
| Citation | 605 F.Supp.3d 1188 |
| Parties | Christina GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. VITUS ENERGY, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Michele L. Power, Whitney Power Wilson, Power and Power Law, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff.
Dustin C. Hamilton, Nathan John Beard, Le Gros Buchanan & Paul, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Defendant Vitus Energy LLC's ("Vitus") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Partial Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion for Partial Summary Judgment") at Docket 46. Plaintiff Christina Garcia responded in opposition at Docket 49. Vitus replied at Docket 48. For the foregoing reasons, Vitus's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART.
Defendant Vitus is the owner and operator of the JACKIE M, a 61-foot, 14-ton tugboat.1 The JACKIE M is a United States Coast Guard documented vessel.2 As is common for tugboats working in Alaska, the JACKIE M uses skiffs to guide the tugboat and take depth soundings.3 In October 2018, the skiff used to support the JACKIE M ("the skiff") was an 18-foot aluminum boat equipped with a 75-horsepower engine.4 Plaintiff alleges that the skiff did not have any lighting or seating.5
In October 2018, Mr. Kevin Dewitt was the captain of the JACKIE M, having been hired by Vitus earlier in the season.6 Vitus's Director of Marine Operations Luther Bartholomew testified that Mr. Dewitt met the requirements for the position of captain at the time he was hired.7 Mr. Bartholomew stated that Mr. Dewitt "would have been in the top tier captains or operators on western rivers based on his experience, based on his knowledge, based on his license and based on his endorsements that he currently had."8
Plaintiff testified that she met Mr. Dewitt in October 2018 at the Sea Inn Bar in Dillingham, Alaska.9 Mr. Dewitt was accompanied by two other Vitus employees, Engineer Scott Edwards and Deckhand Jonathan Russo.10 Plaintiff testified that the group drank "a lot" that night, staying at the bar until it closed.11 Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff stayed in contact after meeting and made plans to meet again the following Friday.12
That Friday, October 19, 2018, Mr. Dewitt told the crew of the JACKIE M that he was going to Dillingham to meet someone.13 Mr. Dewitt then traveled to Dillingham in the skiff to meet Plaintiff at the Sea Inn Bar.14 Mr. Dewitt arrived at the bar after Plaintiff.15 Plaintiff testified that Mr. Dewitt did not appear intoxicated when he arrived.16 In support of her opposition to Vitus's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit reiterating that Mr. Dewitt did not appear intoxicated when he arrived at the bar on October 19, 2018, but stating that she could "smell[ ] alcohol on his breath."17 In an answer to one of Vitus's interrogatories, Plaintiff indicated that she "now believes that Mr. Dewitt had been drinking prior to arriving at the bar."18
Mr. Dewitt drank one beer at the bar, which Plaintiff bought for him.19 Shortly after arriving, Mr. Dewitt told Plaintiff that he had forgotten his wallet on the JACKIE M and asked Plaintiff if she would like to accompany him to retrieve it.20 Plaintiff agreed, and the pair boarded the skiff.21 At the time Plaintiff and Mr. Dewitt left the bar, it was dark outside.22 Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Dewitt did not provide her with a life jacket.23 Plaintiff testified that there was nowhere for her to sit in the skiff, so she braced herself against "the cabinet."24 Plaintiff and Mr. Dewitt arrived at the JACKIE M and Plaintiff greeted the crew and toured their sleeping quarters.25 Engineer Edwards testified that he thought Plaintiff and Mr. Dewitt were in "party mode" and "were just happy and running around the boat."26 After Mr. Dewitt went to his living quarters to retrieve his wallet, Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff left the JACKIE M aboard the skiff.27 Vitus had a company policy that the skiff was to be used "for Vitus Marine business only – NOT FOR PERSONAL USE."28 The JACKIE M crew members did not question Mr. Dewitt's authority to use the skiff to transport Plaintiff that evening.29
As the pair traveled back to Dillingham in the skiff, Plaintiff again braced herself against the console.30 Mr. Dewitt testified that "the water was high, the shore was very low ... it was only three feet up off of the waterline so in the darkness it was hard to see."31 Mr. Dewitt misjudged their location and the skiff struck a sandbar and became grounded.32 Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff were thrown into the skiff's consoles, which broke free from the skiff.33 Both Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff suffered lacerations to their heads.34
Immediately after the grounding, Plaintiff and Mr. Dewitt used their cell phones for lighting.35 Plaintiff testified that Mr. Dewitt "freaked out" and was hesitant to contact the crew of the JACKIE M for assistance.36 Mr. Dewitt tripped and fell into the water.37 He then tried unsuccessfully to push the skiff off the shore.38 At Plaintiff's behest, Mr. Dewitt called the crew of the JACKIE M.39 The crew of the JACKIE M traveled to the location of the skiff and hoisted the skiff onto the tug.40 After Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff were aboard the tug, Engineer Edwards called Vitus's office to report the accident and spoke with Mark Smith, Vitus's Chief Strategic Officer.41 After speaking with Mr. Smith, Engineer Edwards called 911.42 The crew of the JACKIE M then dropped Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff off at the dock in Dillingham, where they were met by Emergency Medical Technicians and a local police officer.43 The police officer spoke with Mr. Dewitt but did not speak with Plaintiff.44 Mr. Dewitt and Plaintiff were transported to Kanakanak Hospital in Dillingham via ambulance.45 At the hospital, Plaintiff and Mr. Dewitt each received treatment for the lacerations on their heads.46 Plaintiff and Mr. Dewitt were discharged from the hospital that same evening and went to Plaintiff's apartment.47 At Plaintiff's house, Plaintiff attested that Mr. Dewitt produced a half-consumed bottle of alcohol from his jacket pocket and took a drink.48 Mr. Dewitt denies that he consumed alcohol at Plaintiff's home after the grounding.49
Hours after the grounding, at 5:47 a.m., Vitus CEO Justin Charon, sent an email to CSO Mark Smith, asking 50 There is no evidence that Mr. Dewitt was tested for alcohol impairment, either through a saliva swab, breathalyzer, or blood sample, at any point on the night of October 19, 2018.51
Vitus moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence per se, negligent entrustment, and vicarious liability claims.52 Vitus moves for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim and punitive damages claim.53 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." A material fact is "one that might allow judgment in favor of the party opposing summary judgment."54 The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.55 Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, the moving party need not present evidence to show that summary judgment is warranted; it need only prove there is an absence of evidence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact.56 Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.57 The nonmoving party's burden "is not a light one."58 The nonmoving party must come forth with competent "evidence from which a jury could reasonably render a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor."59 The nonmoving party may not simply rest on allegations and denials in its pleading60 and must show "more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence."61 All evidence presented by the nonmoving party must be believed for purposes of summary judgment and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor.62 A court's function on summary judgment is not to weigh evidence or determine the truth of the matter, but rather, to determine if there are genuine issues for trial.63
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed but early enough not to delay trial. "Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."64 A Rule 12(c) motion is "functionally identical" to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, as both require the court to assess the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint.65 "If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56."66 If the court converts a Rule 12(c) motion into one for summary judgment, all parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material pertinent to that motion.67 Here, Vitus did not specifically rely on extrinsic evidence in moving for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's claims for negligent hiring, training, and supervision and punitive damages....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. APL Mar.
... ... 1962)) ... In ... Ballance v. Energy Transp. Corp. , No. 00 CIV. 9180 ... (LMM), 2001 WL 1246586, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2001), ... 369 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying Restatement (Third) of Agency); ... Garcia v. Vitus Energy, LLC , 605 F.Supp.3d 1188, ... 1212 (D. Alaska 2022). Under the Restatement ... ...
- Garcia v. Vitus Energy, LLC