Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01489/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01489-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

1

 Romero objects to Ruiz’s statement of facts insofar as they rely on the Resume of

Recorded Interview of Josue Romero (“Romero Interview”). (Dkt. 108, Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s

Statement of Facts ¶¶ 2-5, 7-12.) Romero does not elaborate as to why the Romero Interview

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Josue Romero,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Henke Machine, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1489-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Ruiz & Associates, Inc., a/k/a Fernando Ruiz, Inc.’s

(“Ruiz”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 100). Plaintiff Josue Romero (“Romero”)

filed a Response in opposition (Dkt. 103), to which Ruiz replied (Dkt. 105). The motion

being fully briefed, the Court now issues this Memorandum of Decision and Order.

BACKGROUND

Romero was hired by Seeds West, Inc. as a Mill Laborer on December 2, 2002. 

(Dkt. 88, Def.’s Statement of Facts (“DSOF”) ¶ 1.) Seeds West is a company that

produces, packages and ships Bermuda grass worldwide. (DSOF ¶ 3.) Romero worked

in Seed’s West’s facility located in Roll, Arizona.1

 (DSOF ¶ 2.) As a Mill Laborer,

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 1 of 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

is not an admissible portion of the record. Furthermore, Romero submits and relies upon the

same interview in his Statement of Facts. (Dkt. 104, Pl.’s Statement of Facts (“PSOF”) Ex.

2.) Finally, Romero does not refer to the specific admissible portion of the record supporting

his position that the fact is disputed. LRCiv 56.1(b). Therefore the Court will accept the

Romero Interview as admissible evidence to be considered in deciding Ruiz’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

- 2 -

Romero’s assigned duties included cleaning out excess seed from a machine called a

vertical auger mixer, commonly referred to as a blender. (Id.) Seeds West did not

provide Plaintiff with any formal training on cleaning the blender. (DSOF ¶ 5.) Plaintiff

did receive training from a co-worker, Ivan Torres. (Id.) The parties and evidence

dispute whether Plaintiff was ever instructed not to place his hand inside the blender to

remove excess seed. (Compare DSOF Ex. 2 (“He states that he was never instructed ‘not

to’ stick his and inside the area to remove any excess sand.”) with DSOF Ex. 4 at 3 (“Mr.

Torres stated that when Mr. Romero was trained he was told to never reach into the

machine. The victim knew this and stated so during his interview.”).)

On March 27, 2003, Plaintiff was operating the blender with Mr. Torres. (DSOF ¶

8.) Plaintiff and Mr. Torres were in the process of cleaning the leftover seed out of the

blender to prepare for running a new batch of seed. (DSOF ¶ 9.) Mr. Torres was on a

forklift platform using an air lance to clean out the top of the blender and Plaintiff was at

the floor level cleaning out the bottom of the machine. (DSOF ¶ 10.) Plaintiff had the

blender’s access door open and, after most of the seed had flowed out by gravity, he

reached in with his right and to clean out the remaining seed. (DSOF ¶ 11.) Mr. Torres

did not realize that Plaintiff was still working on the bottom of the machine and he turned

the power back on, causing Plaintiff’s hand to be severed. (DSOF ¶ 12.) This litigation

arises out of Plaintiff’s injury.

A few years prior to the accident, Seeds West hired Ruiz to provide drug testing

services and generalized safety training. (DSOF ¶ 20.) Ruiz is a company that provides

general assessment level safety training for employees of various companies, including

Seeds West. (DSOF ¶ 21.) Assessment level training provides employees with a basic

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

overview of general safety issues such as preventing back injuries, emergency

preparedness, and the basics of working with electrical equipment. (DSOF ¶ 22.) Ruiz

also provides companies with alcohol and drug testing for their employees. (DSOF ¶ 23.) 

Ruiz entered into a contract with Seeds West to provide generalized overviews of

safety topics at its Yuma and Roll, Arizona facilities. (DSOF ¶ 26.) The contract

required Ruiz to provide monthly safety assessment meetings to Seeds West employees

based on a list of possible safety assessment topics provided by Ruiz. These topics

mirrored the list of videos Ruiz could obtain from an outside vendor, and the safety

meetings generally included showing short videos. (DSOF ¶ 27.) A few days before

each monthly meeting, Ruiz would send a fax to Mr. Robert Vaughn, stating the time and

location of the meeting and identifying the safety topic to be addressed. (DSOF ¶ 28.) 

Seeds West employees were notified of the meetings by a notice posted by Mr.

Vaughn next to the time clock a couple of days before each meeting. Seeds West

required all employees to attend the meetings. The day of each meeting, Mr. Vaughn

called all employees into the building and shut down the facility when the meetings

occurred. (DSOF ¶ 29.) At the monthly meetings, a representative from Ruiz would

show a video on a safety topic and answer any questions employees had on the chosen

topic. The meetings generally lasted about fifteen minutes each. (DSOF ¶ 30.) 

During the monthly safety meetings, no employee ever asked Ruiz to provide

specific training on any specific machine. (DSOF ¶ 31.) No one from Seeds West ever

asked Ruiz, at a safety meeting or any other time, to perform training on specific

machines or training specifically regarding machine guarding for the blender. (DSOF ¶

32.) Ruiz’s contract with Seeds West did not require Ruiz to inspect any Seeds West

machines, and Seeds West never asked Ruiz to survey any of its machines to ensure that

there were no safety deficiencies. (DSOF ¶ 33.) Ruiz never specifically worked with

Seeds West employees on a hands-on basis with regard to any specific machines or

specific working procedures related to their work performed at Seeds West. (DSOF ¶

34.) Seeds West never considered Ruiz to be responsible for its overall safety training

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

program at Seeds West. Ruiz was hired to complement the safety program already in

existence at Seeds West. (DSOF ¶ 35.) Ruiz was never expected or asked to inspect the

blender or otherwise provide training specific to the safe use of the blender and the

machine guarding that should have been in place to protect employees from accidents. 

(DSOF ¶ 36.)

Plaintiff’s alleges that Ruiz’s negligence caused his injury. (DSOF ¶ 37; Dkt. 53,

Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-21.) Plaintiff contends that Ruiz failed to provide specific

safety training on machines used by employees of Seeds West, including the blender that

caused Plaintiff’s injury. (DSOF ¶ 38.) The parties agree that Ruiz did not provide

specific safety training on the blender to Plaintiff or any other Seeds West employee. 

(DSOF, Ex. 11.) Plaintiff admits that the only training he received specific to the blender

was performed by Seeds West, and not by Ruiz. Plaintiff retained an engineer, Quent

Augspurger, to investigate the blender that caused Plaintiff’s injury and assist in the

preparation of his case. (See DSOF, Ex. 12.) The parties dispute the adequacy and

accuracy of the reports Mr. Augspurger produced in connection with this case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). Substantive

law determines which facts are material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986); see also Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130. “Only disputes over facts that might

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of

summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The dispute must also be genuine, that

is, the evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” Id.; see Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130.

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually

unsupported claims.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. Summary judgment is appropriate

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.” Id. at 322; see also Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th

Cir. 1994). The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the

burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The nonmovant “may not rest

upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party’s] pleadings, but . . . must set forth

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-88 (1986);

Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). A trial court

can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(e); Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002).

DISCUSSION

Ruiz seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim, the only claim

asserted against Ruiz. (See Dkt. 53, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-21.) Actionable

negligence arises only when there is a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the

plaintiff from the injury of which he complains, defendant fails to perform this duty, and

the plaintiff is injured as a proximate result of such failure. Bennett v. Estate of Baker,

557 P.2d 195, 197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). In the absence of any one of these elements,

there is no actionable negligence. Id. Thus, a negligence action cannot be maintained

unless there is a duty or obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to

conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against an

unreasonable risk of harm. Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Bd., 706 P.2d 364, 366 (Ariz.

1985). “The first element, whether a duty exists, is for the court to decide.” Gipson v.

Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007).

The Court must first determine whether Ruiz was under any duty of care with

respect to training Plaintiff on the proper use of the blender or examining the blender for

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

safety concerns. See Markowitz, 706 P.2d at 367. Ruiz asserts that it owed no duty to

inspect machines, train employees about specific machines, or ensure there was proper

machine guarding on the blender. (Dkt. 100, Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 7-8.) Ruiz further

asserts that the duty to ensure a safe work place was a duty owed solely by Seeds West

and could not be delegated to Ruiz. (Id. at 8:27-9:13.) Plaintiff responds that Ruiz’s duty

to Plaintiff was created by contract, and included the inspection of the machines Seeds

West employees worked on. (Dkt. 103, Pl.’s Resp. 8:12-22.) Plaintiff further responds

that the duty was not Seeds West’s. (Id. at 9:21-10:11.)

Plaintiff asserts that Ruiz owed a duty to protect Plaintiff from his injury because:

(1) Ruiz was hired as a safety consultant (PSOF ¶ 35); (2) Mr. Vaughn, Seeds West’s

Safety Director, testified that he would not have objected if Ruiz inspected the machines

(PSOF ¶¶ 32, 33, 36); (3) Ruiz “felt obligated to take a look at the facility to see if there

were any safety deficiencies” (PSOF ¶ 32); and (4) Plaintiff’s expert opined that Ruiz fell

below the applicable standard of care as the safety consultant (PSOF ¶¶ 42-47). In sum,

Plaintiff expands Ruiz’s contractual responsibilities to Seeds West into an overall

obligation to ensure the safety of all Seeds West employees, based on Ruiz’s training and

knowledge of workplace safety. 

The evidence presented reveals no genuine issue of material fact to support

Plaintiff’s contention that Ruiz owed Plaintiff a duty to protect against the injury of which

he complains. It is undisputed that Ruiz’s contract with Seeds West did not require Ruiz

to inspect any Seeds West machines. (DSOF ¶ 33; Dkt. 108, Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s

Statement of Facts (“PSOF”) ¶ 33.) It is also undisputed that Ruiz was never expected or

asked to inspect the blender or provide training specific to the safe use of the blender and

the machine guarding. (DSOF ¶ 36; PSOF ¶ 36.) That Mr. Vaughn would not have

objected if Ruiz voluntarily went beyond the scope of its contractual duties does not

create a legal duty. Mr. Ruiz stated that he would feel obligated to examine the

machinery, but expressly distinguished this personal sentiment from the obligations owed

under the contract. (DSOF, Ex. 9, Dep. of Fernando Ruiz dated Dec. 19, 2005 76:16-77:8

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

(“That’s not what I was hired for. . . . What I feel obligated to and what the client hires

me to perform is (sic) two separate issues.”).)

“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the

governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson, 477

U.S. at 248. Plaintiff provides no evidence to dispute the fact that Ruiz was not

responsible for inspecting the Seeds West machines or providing training on the safe use

of specific machines. Plaintiff’s expert opined that Ruiz fell below the standard of care,

but his opinion is also based on the fundamental misconception that Ruiz was responsible

for inspecting the machines at Seeds West. (See DSOF, Ex. 12, Report by Quent

Augspurger dated Jan. 27, 2004 at 6, 7.)

No genuine issue of material fact to support Plaintiff’s contention that Ruiz owed

Plaintiff a duty to protect against the injury of which he complains. Plaintiff fails to

establish that contract or practice created a duty on the part of Ruiz. The Court having

determined that Ruiz owed no duty to Plaintiff, Ruiz’s motion for summary judgment

shall be granted. Gipson, 150 P.3d at 230; Markowitz, 706 P.2d at 366.

CONCLUSION

Ruiz owed no duty to protect Plaintiff from the injury of which he claims. 

Summary judgment is therefore warranted on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Ruiz. 

As this disposes of the only remaining claim and defendant in this matter (see Dkt. 83),

this matter will be terminated. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt. 100).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this

matter and enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-01489-SMM Document 109 Filed 05/15/08 Page 7 of 7