Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02090/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02090-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

George Allen Hartman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-14-02090-TUC-DCB (BGM) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Currently pending before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Motorcycle Accident Claims (Doc. 

52). Plaintiff has not filed a response. Defendant has also filed a Notice of No 

Oppositon [sic] to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 52] and 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc. 57). 

 Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, this matter 

was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. The 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny the Government’s motion for 

summary disposition (Doc. 57) and grant its motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 

52). 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 62) asserts a battery claim under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act.1

 See Order 3/23/2016 (Doc. 59) at 1–2. The battery allegedly 

occurred on April 11, 2011, in the traffic lanes at the DeConcini Port of Entry in Nogales, 

Arizona. See Pl.’s Second Amended Compl. (Doc. 62) at 2–6. Plaintiff further asserts a 

claim for damages arising from an April 12, 2012 motorcycle accident. Id. at 7–8. 

Plaintiff alleges that he experiences “episodes of ‘passing out, hearing stuff wrong, not 

seeing right, and forgetting things’” since the April 11, 2011 incident. Id. at ¶¶ 53–54. 

Plaintiff further alleges that such an episode resulted in the loss of control of his 

motorcycle causing the alleged injuries he suffered in the crash. Id. at ¶¶ 55–66. As 

such, Plaintiff asserts that the motorcycle crash “was a direct and proximate result of the 

injuries he suffered on April 11, 2011.” Id. at ¶ 57. 

 On October 7, 2014, Defendant United States of America filed a Partial Motion to 

Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 12). Defendant sought to 

have, inter alia, Plaintiff’s “general allegations” regarding the April 12, 2012 motorcycle 

accident dismissed. Def.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) at 9–10. In considering 

this issue, the Magistrate Judge stated: 

Without question, establishing proximate cause between the battery and the 

motorcycle accident will require expert medical testimony. Just as lay 

 1

 The Government’s motion refers to the First Amended Complaint; however, 

Defendant’s subsequent Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 30) and Plaintiff’s agreement thereto resulted in the filing of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 62). See Order 3/23/2016 (Doc. 59). Relevant to the motion for summary 

judgment, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not differ materially to its previous 

iteration. See id. As such, for purposes of this Order the Court will rely on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 62). 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

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 

testimony cannot make that causal connection, it is not clear to this Court 

that lay opinion can say that it is implausible. Nonetheless, the resolution 

of this issue has significant impact on case management and early case 

evaluation. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 1 and Rule 23(a)(2)(D) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will order expedited disclosure 

by Plaintiff of expert opinion establishing the causal link between the 

battery and the motorcycle accident. That disclosure must fully comply 

with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and be delivered 

to defense counsel no later than Wednesday, September 16, 2015. 

Report & Recommendation 6/30/2015 (Doc. 22) at 10. The Magistrate Judge 

recommended denial of “Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss as to the ‘General 

Allegations Re: Incident of April 12, 2012’ with leave to refile after September 16, 

2015.” Id. Neither party having objected, on September 30, 2015, the Honorable David 

C. Bury entered his Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. Order 9/30/2015 

(Doc. 38). 

 On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff’s filed his First Motion to Extend Time for 

Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses, Opinions, and Reports (Doc. 31). In his 

motion, Plaintiff sought additional time to disclose an expert witness “establishing the 

causal link between the battery of April 11, 2011, and the motorcycle accident of April 

12, 2012[.]” Pl.’s First Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 31) at 1. On September 24, 2015, 

the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request finding that “Plaintiff has not stated good 

cause for an extension of time to retain a medical expert to establish the causal link 

between the two incidents.” Order 9/24/2015 (Doc. 36) at 2. 

 . . . 

 . . . 

 . . . 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 

106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the 

governing law,” and a dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury 

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 

2510. Thus, factual disputes that have no bearing on the outcome of a suit are irrelevant 

to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Id. In order to withstand a 

motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must show “specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 

S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moreover, a “mere scintilla of evidence” does 

not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 

2512. The United States Supreme Court also recognized that “[w]hen opposing parties 

tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no 

reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for 

purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 

380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). 

 . . . 

 . . . 

 . . . 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

III. ANALYSIS 

 A. Summary Disposition 

 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to an opposition, Defendant seeks a “summary ruling 

with respect to its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” Def.’s Mot. for Summ. 

Dispo. (Doc. 57) at 1. Defendant relies on Local Rule 7.2(i)2

 as authority for this Court 

to summarily enter partial judgment in its favor. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. Dispo. (Doc. 57) 

at 2. It is well established Ninth Circuit law, however, that “[a] local rule that requires 

the entry of summary judgment simply because no papers opposing the motion are filed 

or served, and without regard to whether genuine issues of material fact exist, would be 

inconsistent with Rule 56, [and] hence impermissible under Rule 83.” Henry v. Gill 

Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). As the Henry court recognized, LR 

Civ. 11(i), a predecessor to the current LRCiv. 7.2(i), “does not require the court to grant 

a motion for summary judgment when the non-moving party fails to file and/or serve its 

opposition thereto.” Henry, 983 F.2d at 950 (emphasis in original). The district court has 

discretion “to determine whether non-compliance should be deemed consent to a given 

motion.” Id. “That discretion, however, is necessarily abused when exercised to grant a 

motion for summary judgment where the movant’s papers are insufficient to support that 

motion or on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. As such, summary 

disposition is in appropriate for a motion for summary judgment and Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Disposition (Doc. 57) will be denied. 

 2

 Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona. 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

 B. Partial Summary Judgment 

 Defendant seeks partial summary judgment regarding its alleged liability for 

Plaintiff’s motorcycle accident injuries. See Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (Doc. 52). 

Defendant asserts that “[b]ecause Plaintiff has failed to timely disclose any medical 

expert (or treating physician) who can establish that Defendant’s alleged conduct on 

April 11, 2011 proximately caused the alleged motorcycle accident of April 12, 2012 . . . 

Plaintiff cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact as to Defendant’s liability for 

Plaintiff’s motorcycle accident injuries.” Id. at 5. 

 “If the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the non-moving party, the party 

moving for summary judgment may satisfy Rule 56’s burden of production . . . [by] 

demonstrat[ing] to the Court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to 

establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 331, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2557, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “If the nonmoving 

party cannot must sufficient evidence to make out its claim, a trial would be useless and 

the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citations 

omitted). 

 This Court previously required Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert testimony to 

establish a causal link between the battery and the motorcycle accident. Report & 

Recommendation 6/30/2015 (Doc. 22) at 10; Order 9/30/2015 (Doc. 38). Plaintiff failed 

to timely disclose such an expert and as a result cannot meet his burden at trial. 

Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

(“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving 

party for a jury to return a verdict for that party”). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons discussed, supra, Defendant United States of America’s Motion 

for Summary Disposition (Doc. 57) should be denied, and Defendant’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Motorcycle Accident Claims (Doc. 52) granted. 

V. RECOMMENDATION 

 For the reasons delineated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Judge enter an order: 

 1) DENYING Defendant United States of America’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition (Doc. 57); and 

 2) GRANTING Defendant United States of America’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Motorcycle Accident Claims (Doc. 52); 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to 

another party=s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District 

Judge. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-14-

02090-TUC-DCB. 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the 

Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. 

 Dated this 31st day of May, 2016. 

Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-02090-DCB-BGM Document 69 Filed 06/01/16 Page 8 of 8