Lidstrom v. Scotlynn Commodities Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-05144
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 06, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 ARLIN K. LIDSTROM and LAVERNE LIDSTROM, husband and No. 4:23-CV-05144-MKD 8 wife and the marital community comprised thereof, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 9 AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 10 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS v. 11 ECF Nos. 21, 25 SCOTLYNN COMMODITIES INC., a 12 foreign business entity; and YING H. ZHU, individually, 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendant Scotlynn Commodities, Inc.’s (“Scotlynn’s”) 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF Nos. 21, 25.1 On June 5, 2024, the 17 18 1 Scotlynn filed its motion on March 7, 2024. ECF No. 21. On March 26, 2024, 19 Scotlynn filed a corrected version, which noted a different date for hearing without 20 oral argument, but was otherwise identical to the earlier filing. ECF No. 25. 1 Court held a hearing on the motion. Bryce Patrick McPartland appeared on behalf 2 of Plaintiffs and Jeff M. Sbaih appeared on behalf of Defendants. ECF No. 40.

3 This case concerns an automobile collision involving a truck driven by 4 Plaintiff Arlin Lidstrom and a semi-truck driven by Defendant Ying H. Zhu and 5 owned by Scotlynn. See ECF No. 1. Mr. Lidstrom and his wife Plaintiff Laverne

6 Lidstrom filed suit alleging various causes of action pursuant to state negligence 7 law against Scotlynn and Mr. Zhu. ECF No. 1 at 8. Scotlynn moves to dismiss 8 several theories of negligence as legally insufficient. ECF No. 25. 9 For the reasons stated below, Scotlynn’s motion is granted in part and denied

10 in part. 11 BACKGROUND 12 The Complaint alleges the following. ECF No. 1. In March 2022,

13 Mr. Lidstrom was driving southbound on Route 395 in his 2006 F-250 and hauling 14 another vehicle. ECF No. 1 at 3-4 ¶¶ 3.1-3.2. At the same time, Mr. Zhu was 15 driving eastbound on Foster Wells Road in a semi-truck on behalf of Scotlynn. 16 ECF No. 1 at 4-6 ¶¶ 3.4-3.5, 3.8-3.12.

17 Where the two roads intersect, traffic on Route 395 has the right of way, and 18 stop signs control traffic on Foster Wells Road. ECF No. 1 at 4 ¶ 3.3. As 19 Mr. Lidstrom approached the intersection, Mr. Zhu drove into his path, forcing

20 Mr. Lidstrom to slam on his brakes. ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ 3.6-3.7. Nevertheless, 1 Mr. Lidstrom’s F-250 collided with the semi-truck and trailer in a T-bone fashion, 2 causing significant damage. ECF No. 1 at 7 ¶ 3.13. Mr. Lidstrom was severely

3 injured in the collision. ECF No. 1 at 7 ¶ 3.16. 4 On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging the following 5 causes of action:

6 (1) Mr. Zhu was negligent in the operation of the semi-truck, ECF No. 1 at 8 7 ¶¶ 4.1-4.4; 8 (2) Scotlynn and Mr. Zhu failed duties under the Federal Motor Carrier 9 Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 40, 303, 325, and/or 350-399, and other

10 standards related to commercial motor vehicles; ECF No. 1 at 9 ¶ 4.5; 11 (3) Scotlynn negligently trained Mr. Zhu; ECF No. 1 at 9 ¶ 4.8; 12 (4) Scotlynn negligently allowed Mr. Zhu to use its vehicle; ECF No. 1 at 9

13 ¶ 4.8; 14 (5) Scotlynn negligently maintained the semi-truck and trailer; ECF No. 1 at 15 9 ¶ 4.8; 16

17 18 19

20 1 (6) Scotlynn is liable under respondeat superior and vicarious liability for 2 Mr. Zhu’s negligence; ECF No. 1 at 9 ¶ 4.9.2

3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party 5 may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on

6 the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the 7 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Stanley v. Trustees of the 8 Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2006). When considering a Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 12(c) motion, a district court “must accept all factual allegations in the

10 complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving 11 party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009); Herrera v. Zumiez, 12 Inc., 953 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020).

13 DISCUSSION 14 Scotlynn seeks dismissal of certain theories of liability by advancing two 15 arguments: (1) it is agreed that Mr. Zhu was Scotlynn’s employee, therefore 16 certain theories of Scotlynn’s negligence are foreclosed; and (2) there is no cause

18 2 Plaintiffs also allege joint and several liability pursuant to RCW 4.22.070’s 19 exceptions. ECF No. 1 at 9-10 ¶ 4.11. That issue is not before the Court at this 20 time. 1 of action arising out of regulations. See ECF No. 25 at 5-9. Finally, the Court 2 addresses discovery concerns raised in Plaintiffs’ response. ECF No. 28 at 11-15.

3 A. Mr. Zhu’s Employment with Scotlynn and Theories of Liability 4 Defendants admit in their Answer that “Mr. Zhu was acting within the 5 course and scope of his employment as a driver for Scotlynn, and therefore

6 Scotlynn is vicariously liable for his negligence, if any.” ECF No. 10 at 2 ¶ 2.4. 7 The parties agree that Mr. Zhu may be held liable for his negligence, and that 8 Scotlynn, as Mr. Zhu’s employer, may be held vicariously liable for Mr. Zhu’s 9 negligence. ECF No. 25 at 5; ECF No. 28 at 3-4; see also Anderson v. Soap Lake

10 Sch. Dist., 423 P.3d 197, 214-15 (Wash. 2018) (“Vicarious liability imposes 11 liability on an employer for the torts of an employee who is acting on the 12 employer’s behalf.” (quotations omitted)). Scotlynn argues that this admission

13 forecloses any theories of “direct negligence” against it. ECF No. 25 at 5-7; ECF 14 No. 30 at 2-6. 15 Scotlynn primarily relies upon LaPlant v. Snohomish County, 271 P.3d 254, 16 255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011), and its progeny for the argument. ECF No. 25 at 5-7;

17 ECF No. 30 at 2-6. In LaPlant, Snohomish County deputy sheriffs pursued a 18 stolen vehicle within which LaPlant was a passenger. 271 P.3d at 255. The driver 19 lost control, crashed, and LaPlant suffered injury. Id. LaPlant sued the County,

20 alleging that (1) the deputies were negligent and the County was vicariously liable, 1 and (2) the County was negligent in its training, supervision, and monitoring of the 2 deputies. Id. at 255-56.

3 The Washington Court of Appeals explained that negligent hiring, training, 4 and supervision claims against an employer require that the employee “acted 5 outside the scope of his or her employment.” Id. at 256. Therefore, such claims

6 are “generally improper when the employer concedes the employee’s actions 7 occurred within the course and scope of employment.” Id. at 257. 8 Scotlynn seeks to expand this principle to prevent recovery for any and all 9 theories of its own negligence separate from Mr. Zhu’s negligence. The Court

10 considers each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action in light of this argument.3 11 1. Negligent Training 12 If an employee acts within the scope of his employment, liability for his

13 negligence is extended to his employer, in other words, the employer is 14

15 3 At the hearing, Plaintiffs suggested that LaPlant should only apply to public 16 employers. LaPlant made findings in terms of “employer and employee,” not 17 strictly “public employer and employee.” See generally 271 P.3d at 256-57. 18 Additionally, Washington courts have applied LaPlant in the context of private 19 employment. See, e.g., Garrison v. SagePoint Fin., Inc., 345 P.3d 792, 801 (Wash.

20 Ct. App. 2015). 1 “vicariously liable.” LaPlant, 271 P.3d at 256. As the LaPlant court explains, it 2 would be redundant to also allow a “direct” claim against the employer for breach

3 of the duties it owes as an employer (hiring, training, supervising, etc.). Id. at 257. 4 This is because “[b]oth causes of action rest upon a determination that the 5 [employee is] negligent and that this negligence was the proximate cause of [the

6 plaintiff’s] injuries.” Id. If the employee was negligent, the employer is liable; if 7 not, then the employer cannot be liable for negligently training him (there is no tort 8 for the plaintiff to recover from). Id. 9 This same principle was explained in Gilliam v. DSHS, 950 P.2d 20, 28

10 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). There, plaintiff sued a child protective services 11 investigator and the State of Washington for an allegedly negligent investigation. 12 Id. at 21-24. The plaintiff argued that Washington should be liable for the

13 investigator’s conduct (1) vicariously and (2) directly, for negligently supervising 14 the investigator during the investigation. Id. at 28. The Court of Appeals 15 explained, “[u]nder these circumstances a cause of action for negligent supervision 16 is redundant.” Id.

17 Plaintiffs do not genuinely defend their negligent training claim as legally 18 cognizable in Washington given the state of the pleadings. See ECF No. 28 at 10- 19 11. Instead, they cite to out-of-jurisdiction precedent to indicate that the tide is

20 turning on this doctrine. ECF No. 28 at 10-11 (citing McQueen v. Green, 202 N.E. 1 3d 268 (Ill. 2022); Martin v. Thomas, 346 So. 3d 238 (La. 2022); Wright v. 2 Watkins and Shepard Trucking Company, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Nev. 2013)).

3 Washington courts continue to apply LaPlant, as recently as this year. See 4 LaBounty v. Mount Baker Sch. Dist. No. 507, No. 84610-8-I, 2024 WL 692500, at 5 *7 n.9 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2024) (“In Washington, a cause of action for

6 negligent supervision requires a plaintiff to show that an employee acted outside 7 the scope of his or her employment.” (citing LaPlant, 271 P.3d at 256)). 8 Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr. Zhu acted outside of the scope of his 9 employment during the time in question. Therefore, the Complaint lacks legally

10 sufficient factual matter to support a recoverable claim that Scotlynn negligently 11 trained him. Plaintiffs’ negligent training claim is dismissed. 12 2. Negligent Entrustment

13 “A person entrusting a vehicle to another may be liable under a theory of 14 negligent entrustment only if that person knew, or should have known in the 15 exercise of ordinary care, that the person to whom the vehicle was entrusted is 16 reckless, heedless, or incompetent.” Weber v. Budget Truck Rental, LLC, 254 P.3d

17 196, 198 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Mejia v. Erwin, 726 P.2d 1032, 1034 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)). Scotlynn cites to Niece v. Elmview Grp. Home, to argue 19 that these “negligent entrustment” claims can only arise outside of the scope of

20 employment. 929 P.2d 420, 425-26 (Wash. 1997). 1 The Niece decision discusses a distinct theory of employer negligence, 2 wherein “the relationship between employer and employee gives rise to a limited

3 duty, owed by an employer to foreseeable victims, to prevent the tasks, premises, 4 or instrumentalities entrusted to an employee from endangering others.” Id. at 426. 5 Niece recognizes a cause of action where an employer negligently entrusts

6 instrumentalities, like a semi-truck, to an employee. Id. As the Niece court 7 explains, that cause of action, like negligent training, applies where the employee 8 acts outside the scope of employment. Id. 9 However, the Niece decision does not concern the broader vehicle-

10 entrustment common law cause of action recognized in Weber, which may be 11 established without regard to an employer-employee relationship. 254 P.3d at 198. 12 Scotlynn offers no authority indicating that an employer cannot be liable for

13 negligent entrustment in addition to vicarious liability for an employee negligence. 14 In fact, Kaye v. Lowe’s HIW, Inc. suggests the opposite. 242 P.3d 27, 33-34 15 (2010). There, the plaintiff sought a default judgment against non-appearing 16 defendants. Id. at 29. Plaintiff alleged that two defendants negligently entrusted a

17 truck to a third, who then struck her with it in a parking lot. Id. Plaintiff also 18 alleged vicarious liability—that the driver defendant was acting within the scope of 19 authority granted by, and for the benefit of, the two other defendants. Id. The

20 court’s discussion of the merits of the case noted no conflict between the two 1 theories, though concluded the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts for either. 2 Id. at 31-35; see also Mills v. Southern, No. 31167-4-II, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS

3 1495 (Wash. Ct. App. June 21, 2005) (discussing vicarious liability and negligent 4 entrustment, with no mention that the theories are mutually exclusive). 5 The Court declines to extend LaPlant to negligent entrustment claims

6 without authority requiring it do so.4 7 However, upon review of the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ 8 negligent entrustment claim should be dismissed not for legal insufficiency, but for 9 factual insufficiency. Stanley, 433 F.3d at 1133. The Kaye court efficiently

10 explains the problem with Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the following quote, modified to 11 identify the parties of this case: 12 [Plaintiffs’] allegation that [Scotlynn] owned the truck . . . alone is insufficient to establish a claim of negligent 13 entrustment. Although [their] complaint further alleged that [Scotlynn was] negligent in [its] entrustment of the 14 vehicle to [Mr. Zhu], this allegation—which is not a

15 4 Admittedly, LaPlant’s logic facially applies to this case: if an employer is 16 vicariously liable for torts caused by the employee with a vehicle, there seems no 17 point in litigating whether the employer should have known better than to entrust 18 the vehicle to that employee. 271 P.3d at 256-57. If the employee is liable, so is 19 the employer; if not, there is no wrongdoing to extend the employer through 20 negligent entrustment. Id. 1 factual allegation, but rather is a legal conclusion—is not [presumed to be true]. . . . Thus, . . . [Plaintiffs] failed to 2 plead . . . that [Scotlynn] was negligent in entrusting the truck to [Mr. Zhu]. 3 242 P.3d at 33-34. 4 At most, the Complaint alleges that Mr. Zhu might have been distracted or 5 tired while operating the semi-truck. ECF No. 1 at 1-8. There are no facts alleged 6 that give an inference that Scotlynn knew or should have known that Mr. Zhu was 7 “reckless, heedless, or incompetent.” Weber, 254 P.3d at 198. Plaintiffs’ negligent 8 entrustment claim is dismissed. 9 3. Negligent Maintenance 10 Scotlynn, without citation, asserts that “[e]ven assuming Mr. Zhu’s truck 11 was improperly maintained, if his conduct as the driver involved in the accident 12 did not amount to negligence, then Scotlynn cannot be liable as a matter of law[.]” 13 ECF No. 25 at 7. Scotlynn seems to propose that it may neglect to maintain its 14 semi-trucks, which travel on public roads with 100,000lbs loads, and escape 15 liability so long as the drivers of those vehicles do not operate them negligently. 16 For this proposition, Scotlynn again offers LaPlant. ECF No. 25 at 7. 17 LaPlant does not protect an employer from liability for its own negligence simply 18 because one of its employees was at the forefront of an accident causing injury. 19 271 P.3d at 256-57. As explained more fully above, LaPlant explains that it is 20 redundant to allow a claim against an employer for failing to exercise care in its 1 hiring, training, or supervising when the resulting harm was caused by the 2 negligently hired, trained, or supervised employee. Id. The rational of the narrow

3 rule is simple: the employer is already vicariously liable for that harm, so it is 4 redundant to litigate what should have occurred in hiring, training, or supervising. 5 Id.

6 LaPlant, 271 P.3d at 256-57, and Gilliam, 950 P.2d at 28, do not concern 7 situations where the employer committed negligence separate and apart from the 8 conduct of the employee. Negligence, simply, is duty, breach, injury, and 9 causation. Kaye, 242 P.3d at 33. A showing of those elements creates liability,

10 barring some other doctrine of law holding otherwise. No such doctrine is 11 presented here; therefore, it is legally permissible to hold Scotlynn liable for 12 negligently maintaining the semi-truck without regard to whether Mr. Zhu was

13 negligent. 14 However, like their negligent entrustment claim, Plaintiffs’ negligent 15 maintenance claim is not supported with any factual allegations in the Complaint. 16 The are no allegations concerning the condition of the semi-truck or its

17 maintenance history. Therefore, the Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to give 18 rise to the inference that Scotlynn failed to adhere to the relevant standard of care 19 in the maintenance of its trucks. Plaintiffs’ negligent maintenance claim is

20 dismissed. 1 B. Causes of Action Relating to Federal Regulations 2 Scotlynn argues that there is no legally cognizable cause of action arising

3 out of federal regulations, therefore the Court should dismiss any attempt to hold 4 Scotlynn liable for violating federal regulations. ECF No. 25 at 7-9. 5 Indeed, there is no private cause of action arising out of the Federal Motor

6 Carrier Safety Regulations. See Reichert v. Mendez, No. CV-22-02163, 2023 WL 7 1814293, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 8, 2023) (“nothing within the FMCSR indicates an 8 intent by Congress to create a private federal cause of action for personal-injury 9 claims.”). As Plaintiffs conceded at the hearing, the Complaint is not an attempt to

10 create one. ECF No. 1 at 9 ¶ 4.5. The source of Plaintiffs’ cause of action is 11 Washington negligence law, which provides that “[a] breach of a duty imposed by 12 statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se,

13 but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence[.]” RCW 14 5.40.050. 15 Defendants owe duties to the public to exercise ordinary care, and 16 regulations may inform the fact finder as to the extent of those duties. RCW

17 5.40.050. While Defendants may not be held negligent per se for violations of 18 those regulations, the regulations “may be considered as evidence of negligence.” 19 Morse v. Antonellis, 70 P.3d 125, 126 (Wash. 2003).

20 1 Given Plaintiffs’ clarification at the hearing, the Court does not construe 2 Plaintiffs’ reference to federal regulations as the invocation of a federal “regulatory

3 negligence” cause of action; instead, the reference is a factual assertion of a duty 4 owed and breached. 5 Somewhat separately, Scotlynn again offers LaPlant and Gilliam as a

6 complete shield from liability for its own negligence. ECF No. 30 at 7. For the 7 reasons stated above, the Court disagrees. Scotlynn may be held liable for its 8 negligence separate and apart from Mr. Zhu’s conduct, presuming a duty and 9 breach distinct from negligent hiring, training, or supervision.

10 Scotlynn’s motion is denied to the extent it seeks to dismiss claims for 11 reference to regulations. 12 C. Discovery Disputes

13 There is no discovery motion before the Court, but Plaintiffs express 14 concern over discovery so far and characterize the instant motion as an 15 inappropriate attempt “to bar Plaintiffs from properly investigating Defendant 16 Zhu’s employment history[.]” ECF No. 28 at 12. In addition, the parties have

17 twice previously submitted discovery letter briefs, which were withdrawn shortly 18 after filing, indicating some friction in the discovery process thus far. ECF Nos. 19 23, 24, 32, 33.

20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) provides as follows: 1 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 2 proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount 3 in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 4 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 5 benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 6 Moreover, the scope of discovery is “broad.” Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 7 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 2014). 8 Plaintiffs pursue a claim against Mr. Zhu and Scotlynn alleging Mr. Zhu’s 9 negligent operation of the semi-truck. ECF No. 1 at 8 ¶ 4.1. Scotlynn’s admission 10 that Mr. Zhu is their employee does not render irrelevant evidence related to their 11 employment relationship, including hiring, training, and other employment files 12 related to Mr. Zhu. Mr. Zhu’s knowledge of relevant industry regulations and 13 standards, or Scotlynn’s internal policies and procedures for drivers, trucks, and 14 routes, may evidence a disregard for the relevant standard of care. Evidence of the 15 condition and maintenance of the semi-truck is relevant to whether his operation of 16 the vehicle was the sole cause of the collision. Within reason, Scotlynn’s internal 17 practices, business, structure, etcetera, are relevant to establish a context for 18 Mr. Zhu’s employment, the semi-truck’s operation, and the collision at the heart of 19 this case. Plaintiffs are entitled to such discovery, within the limits of 20 proportionality established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 1 These preliminary observations should be considered instructive but not 2 final. Further discovery disputes may be resolved through conference with the

3 Court or motions practice. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ negligent training, negligent

6 entrustment, and negligent maintenance claims are dismissed. The dismissals are 7 without prejudice to refiling in an amended pleading with sufficient factual matter 8 to support the claims. With respect to all other arguments, Defendants’ motion is 9 denied.

10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 21, is 12 DENIED as moot.

13 2. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 25, is 14 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 15 // 16

20 1 3. Plaintiff’s negligent training, negligent entrustment, and negligent 2 maintenance claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 4 Order and provide copies to the parties. 5 DATED June 6, 2024.

6 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19