Jones v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: Case No.: 2:19-cv-00600-GMN-VCF
• Parties: ANNA JONES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

ANNA JONES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:19-cv-00600-GMN-VCF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

March 31, 2021

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 26), filed by Defendant United States of America ("United States"). Plaintiff Anna Jones ("Plaintiff") filed a Response, (ECF No. 39), and the United States filed a Reply, (ECF No. 43).

Also pending before the Court is the Motion in Limine, (ECF No. 25), filed by Defendant thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation ("TKE"); the United States filed a joinder, (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 36), and TKE filed a Reply, (ECF No. 38).

Also pending before the Court is TKE's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 40), and TKE filed a Reply, (ECF No. 42).

Also Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 31), against Defendant United States. The United States filed a Response, (ECF No. 37), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 44).

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the United States' Motion to Dismiss, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part TKE's Motion in Limine, DENIES TKE's Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENIES as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an injury Plaintiff sustained while exiting an elevator at the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System ("VA hospital"), which is operated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 22-28, ECF No. 1). On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff was riding in an elevator with her husband, other family members, and at least one VA employee. (Id. ¶ 26). As Plaintiff exited the elevator, the door began to shut and struck Plaintiff, causing her to fall to the ground and fracture her hip. (Id. ¶ 28). At this time, TKE was responsible for selling servicing, and maintaining the elevator. (Id. ¶ 24).

According to Plaintiff, the United States and TKE failed to maintain the elevator and implement adequate safety precautions, creating a dangerous condition on the VA hospital premises. (Id. ¶ 32). Based on these failures, Plaintiff filed her Complaint with this Court, alleging negligence against both the United States and TKE, as well as premises liability against the United States alone. (Id. ¶¶ 29-48).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") permits motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that "[t]he party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists"). Accordingly, the court will presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise in response to the motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).

A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A facial attack challenges the sufficiency of the allegations supporting subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. When addressing a facial attack, a court must consider the allegations of the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. "By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction." Id. In resolving a factual attack, a court may review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id.; White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). The court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations. Id.

Once the defendant has "converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court," the plaintiff "must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction." Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). If a court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, then its authority is limited to making that finding and dismissing the claims. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

B. Motion in Limine

In general, "[t]he court must decide any preliminary question about whether . . . evidence is admissible." Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). In order to satisfy the burden of proof for Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 104(a), a party must show that the requirements for admissibility are met by a preponderance of the evidence. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S. Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) ("We have traditionally required that these matters [regarding admissibility determinations that hinge on preliminary factual questions] be established by a preponderance of proof.").

"Although the [FRE] do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4, 105 S. Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (citing FRE 103(c)). In limine rulings "are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change [her] mind during the course of a trial." Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3, 120 S. Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000); see also Luce, 469 U.S. at 41, 105 S. Ct. 460. Judges have broad discretion when ruling on motions in limine. See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). However, a motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence. C&E Servs., Inc., v. Ashland, Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (D.D.C. 2008). To exclude evidence on a motion in limine, the evidence must be inadmissible "on all potential grounds." See, e.g., Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). "Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context." Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

C. Motion for Summary Judgment

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that "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). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could rely to find for the nonmoving party. See id. "The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough 'to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.'" Aydin Corp. v. LoralCorp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). "Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor." Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. "When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case." C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It issufficient 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. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the nonmoving party "may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that...