McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE DANA MCARTHUR, et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01071-RAJ-TLF Plaintiffs, ORDER v. HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC., et al.,

Defendants.

The Court, having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, Dkt. # 141, Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. # 142, Plaintiffs’ response to the objections, Dkt. # 143, and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS: // // // // // 1. The Court MODIFIES the Report and Recommendation to the extent it suggests it is improper to include in a reply brief a request to strike materials contained in the opposition brief. LCR 7(g) permits such requests. The Court ADOPTS the remainder of the Report and Recommendation.1 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 3. Both parties’ motion to strike expert evidence are DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 30th day of July, 2025.

A

The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

1 As for Defendants’ motion to strike, the Court reaches the same conclusion that the motion should be denied without prejudice, but does so for different reasons. The Court need not rely on the challenged portion of Mr. Downey’s opinion to find there is an issue of material fact as to whether an enhanced risk of seaplane accidents in the Ketchikan area is open and obvious to the reasonable person. See Dkt. # 121-20 at 10, 14; Dkt. 107- 1 at 139, 141, 180, 191; Dkt. # 121-59 at 2. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on its admissibility at this time. See Monetti v. City of Seattle, 875 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1233 (W.D. Wash. 2012). The Court has reviewed the remainder of Defendants’ objections but does not find they overcome Judge Fricke’s findings that there are issues of material fact as to duty and causation that preclude summary judgment.