The Estate of David Shafer and Colleen Shafer v. The City of Spokane

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

and COLLEEN SHAFER, an NO. 2:22-CV-0220-TOR individual, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT v.

THE CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal corporation, Defendant.

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied. // // This case concerns a wrongful death suit arising out of a police shooting.

See ECF No. 17 at 5–8, ¶¶ 4.7–4.28. On August 28, 2020, Claimant Colleen Shafer filed a Claim for Damages against the City of Spokane for the alleged wrongful shooting. ECF No. 23-1 at 3. In this Claim, Ms. Shafer alleged specific

losses for “Mr. Shafer’s pre-death pain and suffering; damages to Mr. Shafer’s estate; loss of consortium and other damages suffered by Mr. Shafer’s spouse and children.” Id. On October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, alleging in part claims for negligence. See ECF No. 1. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a

First Amended Complaint dropping the negligence claim as to the Estate of David Shafer (“Estate”). ECF No. 5 at 13. On October 18, 2022 Claimant Colleen Shafer, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Shafer,

filed a second Claim for Damages against the City of Spokane, which alleged the same incident and losses as the first claim. See ECF No. 23-2 at 3. On December 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which realleged a negligence claim against Defendant as to Plaintiff Estate. ECF No. 17 at 14–15.

I. Summary Judgment Standard The Court may grant summary judgment in favor of a moving party who

demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must only consider admissible

evidence. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to identify specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252. For purposes of summary judgment, a fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. Further, a dispute is

“genuine” only where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. The Court views the facts, and all rational inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). Summary judgment will thus be granted

“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

// II. Washington’s Notice of Claim Statute Under Washington law, a plaintiff seeking damages against a governmental

entity must comply with Washington’s notice of claim filing statute. See RCW 4.96.020. Before asserting a claim for tort damages, a claimant must satisfy certain claim filing requirements. Id. Claims must “be presented to the agent within the

applicable period of limitations” and set forth certain substantive information. RCW 4.96.020(2), (3). While the statute authorizes “substantial compliance” with the substance of the claim, Washington courts require “strict compliance with the filing procedures

themselves.” Pirtle v. Spokane Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 81, 83 Wash. App. 304, 307, 309 (1996) (internal citations omitted). Substantial compliance means (1) a bona fide attempt to comply with the statute and (2) notice that actually accomplishes its

purpose. Renner v. City of Marysville, 168 Wash. 2d 540, 545 (2010). The requirements are meant to be liberally construed and are not intended to be applied as a “gotcha” statute. Myles v. Clark Cnty., 170 Wash. App. 521, 532 (2012). The purpose of the statute is to give a government entity time to investigate potential

claims and to encourage settlement. Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Benton Cnty., 147 Wash. 2d 303, 313 (2002). Plaintiffs’ August 28, 2020 claim was sufficiently detailed to put the City on

notice of Plaintiffs’ claims on behalf of the Estate. See ECF No. 23-1 at 3. This claim included damages for the Estate and alleges claims that flow from the Estate by a personal representative, i.e. Colleen Shafer, including claims for loss of consortium. See RCW 4.20.010. Moreover, the notice that the claim was investigated and denied “in its entirety” was addressed to “Colleen Shafer-Estate of David Shafer.” See ECF No. 25-2. Viewing the facts in light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the August 28, 2020 claim provided a bona fide attempt to meet the requirements of the statute and it provided the City with the information necessary to fully investigate the claim as to / Colleen Shafer, both individually and as personal representative of the Estate. As a result, the Court finds the claim substantially complied with the requirements of 11] RCW 4.96.020. The Estate’s negligence claim is consequently not barred. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B); RCW 4.16.080(2). Defendant’s Motion is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is DENIED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel. The file remains OPEN. DATED May 2, 2023.

x be 5 MW, hee Qe THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY