Stotmeister v. Alion Sci. & Tech. Corp., Civil Action No. 08–01193 TFH1
| Decision Date | 25 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 08–01193 TFH1 |
| Citation | 65 F.Supp.3d 56 |
| Parties | Mary S. Stotmeister, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alion Science & Tech. Corp., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
William P. Lightfoot, Kelly Fisher, Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Daniel R. Lanier, George M. Church, Joseph L. Beavers, Alicia N. Ritchie, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Baltimore, MD, Alfred Long Scanlan, Jr., Angela M. Roberts, Godwin, Erlandson, Vernon & Daney, LLC, Ellicott City, MD, Christopher Allan Glaser, Robert N. Kelly, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Washington, DC, Dawn C. Doherty, Michael T. Hamilton, Theodore J. Segletes, III, Marks O'Neill O'Brien Doherty & Kelly PC, Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of Alion Science and Technology Corporation, Cherry Hill Construction, Inc., Day & Zimmerman Group Services, DC Water and M & M Welding & Fabricators, Inc. on the Issue of Frank Stotmeister's Contributory Negligence [ECF No. 160], which urges the Court to grant summary judgment in the defendants' favor on the ground that the doctrine of contributory negligence bars the plaintiffs from prevailing on their claims for damages relating to fatal injuries Francis (“Frank”) Stotmeister sustained while working on a construction project on April 23, 2004. After the motion was filed, the plaintiffs entered into settlement agreements with all the moving defendants except Day & Zimmerman Group Services (“Day & Zimmerman”) and M & M Welding & Fabricators, Inc. (“M & M Welding”). Accordingly, the Court considers the merits of the motion only with respect to Day & Zimmerman and M & M Welding. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Frank Stotmeister's injuries were caused by his own contributory negligence so summary judgment in favor of Day & Zimmerman and M & M Welding shall be granted. For these same reasons, the Court will deny the Stotmeister Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider [ECF No. 246] and, accordingly, the Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider [ECF No. 249] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument [ECF No. 256] will be denied as moot.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 mandates that “[t]he Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 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). 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). A dispute over a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. At the summary judgment stage, however, “the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Id.
Although “[t]he evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party,” Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303, 308 (D.C.Cir.2011), “[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The ultimate inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id.
The evidence the Court may consider when passing on a summary judgment motion consists of “materials specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) as well as any material that would be admissible or usable at trial.” Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Auth., 651 F.3d 118, 145 (D.C.Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Pursuant to Rule 56(c), the Court is not limited to the evidence cited by the parties but also “may consider other materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). In addition, the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia state that “[i]n determining a motion for summary judgment, the court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion.” LCvR 7(h)(1), available at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/local-rules.
The Court reviewed the extensive volumes of evidence that constitute the record in this case and carefully culled and evaluated the facts to determine whether there were any genuine disputes about facts that could be deemed material to the outcome. On the whole, it frankly is surprising how little dispute there is with respect to the facts, particularly in light of the realization that most of the evidence involved the testimony of witnesses, many of whom were deposed about the same events multiples times, by multiple attorneys, over a period of several years. The witnesses in this case were remarkably concordant in their recollections of the events that took place during the early morning hours on April 23, 2004, so there quite simply were few instances of conflicting evidence that raised genuine disputes.2 After considering all the evidence and the entire record in this case, the Court finds the following facts to be undisputed.3
The General Services Administration National Capital Region Heating Operation and Transmission District (referred to by its acronym “GSA HOTD”) manages and operates the Steam Distribution Complex, which is a “12–mile distribution pipeline that spiders the central business district of Washington, D.C.” Exs. In Supp. of Stotmeister Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. In Opp'n to Mots. for Summ. J. Ex. 38, Richard Matkins Dep. 16:1–3 (quote), 198:3–198:9 (Dec. 12, 2007) [ECF No. 204–5]; id.at Ex. 103, Carroll Williams Dep. 23:5–23:11 (Oct. 28, 2009) [ECF No. 208–6] ().4 The section of the Steam Distribution Complex that runs beneath 17th Street provides steam to several federal buildings. Compare Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute ¶ 1 [ECF No. 160–1], with Stotmeister Pls.' Disputed Material Facts [ECF No. 196–2] ().
In 2002, GSA HOTD entered into a task-order contract with Grunley–Walsh Joint Venture, Inc. (“Grunley–Walsh”) that ultimately required Grunley–Walsh to replace a section of the Steam Distribution Complex running under 17th Street from the so-called “Point of Connection”—which was located at the intersection of 17th Street and New York Avenue—to Manhole 8.5 Compare Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute ¶ 2 [ECF No. 160–1], with Stotmeister Pls.' Disputed Material Facts [ECF No. 196–2] (); Exs. In Supp. of Stotmeister Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. In Opp'n to Mots. for Summ. J. Ex. 70, Bassem Soueidan Dep. 118:16–124:18, 129:1–136:22, 145:1–145:7 (Mar. 16, 2007) [ECF No. 206–5]; United States' Supplemental Mem. In Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 7, Westphal Decl. ¶ 3 [ECF No. 122–1]; United States' Supplemental Mem. In Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 10 (Order No. P–11–02–YT–0256) [ECF No. 122–1]. The project was referred to as the “17th Street Steam Distribution Project” and involved, among other things, excavating 17th Street to remove the existing steam and condensate pipes and install new pipes. Exs. In Supp. of Stotmeister Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. In Opp'n to Mots. for Summ. J. Ex. 70, Bassem Soueidan Dep. 118:6–118:8, 129:15–129:20, 131:7–131:21 (Mar. 16, 2007) [ECF No. 206–5]; Day & Zimmerman's Opp'n to the United States' Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 10, Greg Westphal Decl. ¶ 4 [ECF No. 94–9].
Although Grunley–Walsh was the prime contractor responsible for performing the 17th Street Steam Distribution Project, Grunley–Walsh entered into subcontracts with other companies to assist with the required work. Mem. of P. & A. In Supp. of Pls.' Partial Opp'n to Third Party Def. U.S.A.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 2–3 [ECF No. 97] (); Exs. In Supp. of Stotmeister Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. In Opp'n to Mots. for Summ. J. Ex. 70, Bassem Soueidan Dep. 145:5–145:11 (Mar. 16, 2007) [ECF No. 206–5]; id. at Ex. 73, Bassem Soueidan Dep. 31:1–31:8 (May 25, 2010) [ECF No. 206–8]. Grunley–Walsh hired M & M Welding to replace the components of the steam system and install a temporary boiler in Manhole 11. Mem. of P. & A. In Supp. of Pls.' Partial Opp'n to Third Party Def. U.S.A.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 3 [ECF No. 97]. Grunley–Walsh also contracted with Cherry Hill Construction, Inc. (“Cherry Hill”) to excavate, insulate, and perform back-filling services for the 17th Street Steam Distribution Project. Exs. In Supp. of Stotmeister Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. In Opp'n to Mots. for Summ. J. Ex. 70, Bassem Soueidan Dep. 145:1–145:4 (Mar. 16, 2007) [ECF No. 206–5].
After Grunley–Walsh began performing the contract work for the 17th Street Steam Distribution Project, GSA HOTD issued a change order that modified Grunley–Walsh's contract to require the installation of an 8–inch water service line between Manhole 7 and Manhole 9 as part of an effort to modernize the Old...
To continue reading
Request your trial