Pham v. King County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

MINH PHAM, CASE NO. C24-1456JLR Plaintiff, ORDER v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiff Minh Pham’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Mot. (Dkt. # 28).) Mr. Pham asks the court to rule as a matter of law that Defendant Warren McPherson1 was negligent and at fault for the October 21, 2022 vehicle collision at the center of this case. (Mot. at 2.) Mr. McPherson “agrees that [his] driving conduct that evening was negligent and that his negligence was a cause of the collision[.]” (Resp.

1 Mr. Pham also sought the same ruling with respect to former Defendant Camron Olson. (See Mot. at 2.) The parties, however, have since stipulated to the dismissal of Mr. Olson with prejudice. (See 4/17/25 Order (Dkt. # 52); Notice of Settlement (Dkt. # 50).) (Dkt. # 47) at 1.) Mr. McPherson asks, however, that the court’s order granting Mr. Pham’s motion for partial summary judgment “not preclude [Mr.] McPherson from

pursuing the comparative fault defense[.]” (Id. at 2.) Mr. Pham argues in reply that the court should reject Mr. McPherson’s request because the comparative fault defense is not viable under the facts of this case. (See generally Reply (Dkt. # 48).) The court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Mr. McPherson was negligent and that his negligence proximately caused the October 21, 2022 collision. Therefore, the court GRANTS Mr. Pham’s motion for partial summary

judgment (Dkt. # 28). The court denies Mr. Pham’s request to prohibit Mr. McPherson from asserting a comparative fault defense without prejudice to raising the issue in an appropriate motion. See United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992) (“New arguments may not be introduced in a reply brief.”). The court makes no ruling regarding Mr. Pham’s other asserted claims, damages, or apportionment of fault among

Defendants. Dated this 18th day of April, 2025. A United States District Judge