Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01703-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Helm
Plaintiff
Jay Negus
Defendant
United States Postal Service
Defendant
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH HELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

No. 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Helm (“Plaintiff”) originally initiated this action against the United 

States Postal Service and its employee, rural mail carrier Jay Negus, alleging claims for 

negligence and negligent hiring, entrustment, and supervision arising out of a car 

accident.

1

 ECF No. 1. The United States later substituted in as the proper party 

Defendant and successfully moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action. ECF 

Nos. 21, 26. Presently before the court is the United States’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 41) as to Plaintiff’s remaining claim. For the following reasons, that 

Motion is DENIED.

2

 

 1 For instant purposes, no additional factual background is necessary and therefore none is 

provided.

2 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 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

2

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure3 provide for summary judgment when “the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). One of the principal purposes of Rule 56 is to 

dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24.

In a summary judgment motion, the moving party always bears the initial 

responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the 

portions in the record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of 

material fact.” Id. at 323. If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden 

then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact 

actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 

586-87 (1986); First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968).

In resolving a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to 

be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed 

before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 255 (1986). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out 

of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to produce a factual predicate from 

which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 

1224, 1244-45, 1248 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987).

The crux of the United States' current motion is that Plaintiff is prohibited from

presenting any evidence of damages either in opposition to the instant Motion or at trial, 

and, as a consequence, his negligence claim fails as a matter of law. See Ileto v. Glock, 

Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir. 2003) (The elements of negligence cause of action 

are: (1) existence of a duty of care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and 

(4) damages.). More specifically, the Government contends that, in violation of Rule 26 

(a)(1), Plaintiff failed to disclose a computation of each category of damages he seeks or

 3 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise noted.

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 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

3

to disclose the witnesses and documents he may use to support his damages claims. 

Having failed to make those disclosures, the Government contends that Plaintiff is 

precluded from offering any damages-related evidence under the self-executing, 

automatic sanctions of Rule 37(c)(1). Following this logic, the Government is entitled to 

judgment because, absent any damages evidence, Plaintiff cannot prevail on his sole 

remaining claim. 

The Government's primary undisputed fact is therefore that Plaintiff never made 

his damages-related Rule 26 disclosures. See Def.’s Separate Statement of Undisputed 

Material Facts, ECF No. 41-2. However, in opposition, Plaintiff produced evidence that 

he did, in fact, make both initial and supplemental disclosures. See Declaration of

Rosemary Hernandez, ECF No. 43, ¶¶ 3, 5. Plaintiff provides minimal explanation as to 

why he did not re-send those disclosures to the Government again when it became clear 

that the United States had not received them in the first place, or why, prior to filing his 

instant Opposition, he never thought to mention that he had at some point provided that 

information. However, Plaintiff does argue that he thought the large volume of 

documents he had produced, coupled with his disclosures, which were never returned, 

met the Government’s needs. Plaintiff also states very generally that he “thought the 

issues resolved.” Pl.’s Opp. at 4. Despite the cursory nature of Plaintiff’s explanations, 

his evidence is nonetheless sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact for 

summary judgment purposes, and the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(ECF No. 41) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2014

Case 2:11-cv-01703-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 03/20/14 Page 3 of 3