McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc

W.D. Washington

McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc

DecidedJuly 30, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01071

StatusUnknown

This text of McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc (McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DANA MCARTHUR, et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01071-RAJ-TLF 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER 12 v. 13 HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC., et 14 al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 The Court, having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of 18 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, Dkt. # 141, Defendants’ objections to the Report and 19 Recommendation, Dkt. # 142, Plaintiffs’ response to the objections, Dkt. # 143, and the 20 remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS: 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 1 1. The Court MODIFIES the Report and Recommendation to the extent it 2 suggests it is improper to include in a reply brief a request to strike materials contained 3 in the opposition brief. LCR 7(g) permits such requests. The Court ADOPTS the 4 remainder of the Report and Recommendation.1 5 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 6 3. Both parties’ motion to strike expert evidence are DENIED without 7 prejudice. 8 Dated this 30th day of July, 2025.

9 A 10

11 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 1 As for Defendants’ motion to strike, the Court reaches the same conclusion that the 21 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 22 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- 23 1 at 139, 141, 180, 191; Dkt. # 121-59 at 2. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on 24 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 25 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. 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DANA MCARTHUR, et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01071-RAJ-TLF 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER 12 v. 13 HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC., et 14 al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 The Court, having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of 18 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, Dkt. # 141, Defendants’ objections to the Report and 19 Recommendation, Dkt. # 142, Plaintiffs’ response to the objections, Dkt. # 143, and the 20 remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS: 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 1 1. The Court MODIFIES the Report and Recommendation to the extent it 2 suggests it is improper to include in a reply brief a request to strike materials contained 3 in the opposition brief. LCR 7(g) permits such requests. The Court ADOPTS the 4 remainder of the Report and Recommendation.1 5 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 6 3. Both parties’ motion to strike expert evidence are DENIED without 7 prejudice. 8 Dated this 30th day of July, 2025.

9 A 10

11 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 1 As for Defendants’ motion to strike, the Court reaches the same conclusion that the 21 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 22 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- 23 1 at 139, 141, 180, 191; Dkt. # 121-59 at 2. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on 24 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 25 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. 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McArthur v. Holland America Line Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcarthur-v-holland-america-line-inc-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack