Harris v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

• Decision Date: 29 September 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-cv-8 (CRC)
• Parties: Phyllis HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

490 F.Supp.3d 295

Phyllis HARRIS, Plaintiff,

v.WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-8 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 29, 2020

Dawn R. Anderson-Jackson, Jackson Associates Law Firm, PLLC, Largo, MD, Howard E.E. Haley, IV, The Haley Firm, PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

James Douglas Cuthbertson, Neal Marcellas Janey, Jr., Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge

This case arises from tragic circumstances. Plaintiff Phyllis Harris's son, Jamal Ferrell, was fatally stabbed last year at the underground entrance to the Potomac Avenue Metro Station in Southeast Washington, D.C. She has now sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA") for negligence, claiming WMATA could have prevented Mr. Ferrell's death had it acted reasonably to prevent the escalation of an argument on a WMATA bus prior to the stabbing, to ensure the Metro station was secure, and to provide medical assistance to Mr. Ferrell after the attack. WMATA has moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.

WMATA will prevail on most of Ms. Harris's claims. Some of those claims are barred by WMATA's sovereign immunity, which shields it from tort liability for actions and omissions in the course of performing its governmental functions. Others fail because the undisputed facts show that, even if WMATA breached certain duties it owed to Mr. Ferrell, those breaches did not proximately cause Mr. Ferrell's death. However, there are genuine disputes of material fact as to one issue: whether WMATA is liable for its station agent's alleged failure to provide emergency medical assistance to Mr. Ferrell after the attack. The Court will therefore deny WMATA's motion with respect to that claim but grant it as to all the others.

I. Background

A. Facts

The following facts are either undisputed or apparent from security camera footage provided by WMATA in support of its motion.¹ On the night of April 28, 2019, Jamal Ferrell was traveling on a WMATA bus when he got into a verbal altercation with several other passengers. Starting at 11:35 p.m.,² security footage shows Mr. Ferrell engaging with three other passengers on the bus: a woman, a man wearing light-colored pants (referred to in Ms. Harris's brief as "Male #1"); and a man wearing dark-colored pants ("Male #2"). Although the audio is difficult to hear, the conversation grows heated, and raised voices can be heard on the security video at 11:36. Mr. Ferrell repeatedly asks, "What are you talking about?" Mr. Ferrell then gets up from his seat and walks toward the front of the bus. As Mr. Ferrell is moving away, Male #2 says something along the lines of, "You better keep on moving, shorty, if you don't want the shit kicked out of you, shorty. I'll [inaudible] the shit out of his dumb ass." Clearly agitated, Mr. Ferrell responds that he is "right here," then makes a remark that is difficult to hear. The woman then turns toward Mr. Ferrell and tells him to "go home, sir, go home." No physical fight occurs on the bus.

At 11:37, the woman and Male #2 leave the bus through the rear exit door. A few seconds later, Mr. Ferrell asks the bus driver to let him off, and he exits through the front door. Male #1 follows Mr. Ferrell out the front door almost immediately. From the video, it appears that the four passengers briefly engage with each other on the sidewalk. At 11:37:40, Male #1 returns to the bus and says, "I'll put your dumb ass to sleep out here, shorty," or something similar. The bus then pulls away.

Mr. Ferrell is next seen on camera at 11:40:38, when he arrives at the Potomac Avenue Metro Station, which is owned and operated by WMATA. Security footage from the Metro station shows that all three of the station's escalators are operating. The escalator on the left side of the screen leads down; the middle escalator and the one on the right lead up.

Almost as soon as Mr. Ferrell appears descending on the left escalator, a man—apparently Male #2—appears to kick him. He tumbles to the bottom of the escalator. Because the station is closed, the gates to the platform are down, and Mr. Ferrell cannot flee into the passenger area of the station. A second camera positioned inside the station captures the fight that occurs at the bottom of the escalators. Mr. Ferrell and his assailant exchange punches as he is backed against a wall. The camera then records the assailant stabbing Mr. Ferrell several times, pushing him onto the up escalator on the right, and possibly stabbing him again.

At 11:41:18, another individual—possibly the woman from the bus—appears on the video and travels down the left escalator. This person then travels up the middle escalator with the assailant. Meanwhile, a visibly injured Mr. Ferrell rides the right escalator, prone but still moving. About halfway up, he appears to stop moving and the escalator carries him off screen.

According to a declaration submitted by Metro Transit Police Department ("MTPD") Captain Stephen M. Boehm, MTPD received a radio call at "approximately 11:42 p.m." about "a reported assault at Potomac Avenue Metro Station." Boehm Decl. ¶ 16. MTPD subsequently responded and found a man who fit Mr. Ferrell's description unresponsive and without a pulse at the top of the escalator. Id. The record does not reflect who called the police, what information the caller conveyed, or what time MTPD arrived at the station.

At 11:43:08, another person—apparently a WMATA station agent—appears on camera inside the Metro station. She walks toward the scene and looks around from inside the gate. The agent exits the frame, then returns about a minute later and takes a closer look. The video does not establish what the station agent heard or saw during the time when Mr. Ferrell was in the station. Nor is it apparent whether the station agent was able to see Mr. Ferrell from inside the gate when she inspected the scene, and if so, whether she took any actions to help him. Sadly, Mr. Ferrell died from his injuries.

B. Proceedings in this Case

Ms. Harris initially filed this action in District of Columbia Superior Court in December 2019, seeking damages for WMATA's alleged negligence under D.C.’s wrongful death and survival statutes. Compl., ECF No. 1-4. WMATA removed the case to this Court in January 2020, asserting jurisdiction under the WMATA Compact, the congressionally approved interstate compact that created WMATA. Notice of Removal 2 (citing D.C. Code § 9-1107.10 ).

WMATA soon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing primarily that Ms. Harris's claims were barred by WMATA's sovereign immunity. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 7. Ms. Harris filed both an opposition brief and a motion to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to amend in February 2020. Among other changes, the amended complaint adds allegations that WMATA's actions violated its own Station Standard Operating Procedures ("SSOPs"). Am. Compl. ¶ 23.

After Ms. Harris amended her complaint, WMATA filed the present motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, attaching a statement of material facts, declarations from two witnesses, and security videos from the bus and Metro station recorded the night of April 28, 2019. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J, ECF No. 13. WMATA argues that Ms. Harris has failed to state a claim or, alternatively, that the undisputed facts establish WMATA's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. WMATA also continues to argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Ms. Harris's claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Ms. Harris filed a response in opposition to WMATA's motion but did not file a statement of material facts or any exhibits. WMATA's motion is now ripe for decision.

II. Legal Standards

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court must dismiss any claim over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Auster v. Ghana Airways Ltd., 514 F.3d 44, 48 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Knapp Med. Ctr. v. Hargan, 875 F.3d 1125, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Court must "accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff's favor," but need not "assume the truth of legal conclusions" in the complaint. Williams v. Lew, 819 F.3d 466, 472 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court also "may consider materials outside the pleadings in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction." Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claim that is barred by sovereign immunity. See Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207, 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The governments of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, with congressional blessing, created WMATA to provide a regional transportation system for the D.C. metropolitan area. In doing so, the states expressly conferred their own Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity upon WMATA. See Watters v. WMATA, 295 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, "unless WMATA's sovereign immunity has been waived, [a] district court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment against" it. Id. at 39-40.

The WMATA Compact expressly waives sovereign immunity over WMATA's "torts and those of its Directors, officers, employees and agent committed in the conduct of any proprietary function" but retains immunity "for any torts occurring in the performance of a governmental function." D.C. Code § 9-1107.01(80). Thus, when considering whether WMATA is immune from suit, the Court must determine whether the challenged actions are proprietary or governmental. That question "is one of federal law." Burkhart, 112 F.3d at 1216 (citation...