Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08039/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08039-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Larry Whiting and Leroy Whiting,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Dana A. Hogan; Mayflower Transit, LLC; 

and Clark Moving and Storage, Inc., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-8039-PCT-GMS

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

(Doc. 155.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in 

part.1

DISCUSSION 

Defendants Clark Moving and Storage Inc. and Mayflower Transit LLC move for 

partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims of (1) negligent hiring; (2) negligent 

supervision; and (3) negligent entrustment. (See Doc. 1-1, Compl. at 8–13; Doc. 21, 

Amend. Compl.) Defendants contend that these claims are duplicative of Plaintiffs’ 

vicarious liability claims and would allow for a double recovery. Defendants do not 

dispute that vicarious liability applies to them for Defendant Hogan’s actions while 

driving at the time of the subject accident. (Doc. 156, DSOF ¶ 5.) In their Response, 

 

1

 The Parties’ requests for oral argument are denied because they have had an adequate opportunity to discuss the law and evidence, and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 

724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Case 3:12-cv-08039-GMS Document 162 Filed 08/28/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiffs stipulate to dismissal of these claims. (Doc. 157 at 1.) 

 The Parties dispute whether Defendants should be awarded costs as the prevailing 

parties on these claims. The Court will not award costs to either Party until the underlying 

claims are adjudicated and liability is determined. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ claims of (1) negligent hiring; 

(2) negligent supervision; and (3) negligent entrustment are dismissed from Counts Two 

and Three of this action, (Doc. 1-1, Compl. at 8–13; Doc. 21, Amend. Compl.). 

 Dated this 28th day of August, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-08039-GMS Document 162 Filed 08/28/13 Page 2 of 2