Pacheco v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 YESENIA PACHECO, et al., Case No. C15-1175RSL 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion in Limine” regarding 14 the damages phase. Dkt. # 149. Defendant seeks to exclude evidence regarding (a) lost 15 wages or expenses that would ordinarily be incurred as the result of having and raising a 16 child and (b) S.L.P.’s lost future wages or general damages. Having reviewed the 17 submissions of the parties,1 the Court finds as follows: 18 Under Washington law, Ms. Pacheco and Mr. Lemus may “recover those expenses 19 in excess of the cost of the birth and rearing of [a normal child].” Harbeson v. 20 Parke-Davis, Inc., 98 Wn.2d 460, 477 (1983). Both parties are therefore correct: plaintiffs 21 may not recover for lost wages/expenses that would ordinarily be incurred as the result of 22 the birth of a child, but they may recover for the loss of income associated with taking 23 S.L.P. to medical appointments and therapy sessions. 24 25 1 The Court has considered plaintiffs’ untimely response and defendant’s reply (which 26 was authorized by the Court’s case management order, Dkt. # 135 at 1). 1 With regards to S.L.P.’s claim, Plaintiffs agree that she is entitled to recover only 2 extraordinary expenses for medical care and special training. Harbeson, 98 Wn.2d at 482. 3 4 5 Dated this 1st day of June, 2020. A 6 Robert S. Lasnik 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26