ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ~ 1 

\\ord.local\shares\home\cweller\desktop\ord.deny.def.msj.docx 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

KARLY GREICO, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

No. 1:14-CV-00933-RHW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 

35. The Court held a telephonic hearing on this Motion on September 30, 2015. 

Plaintiffs are represented by David Moule, while Assistant United States Attorney 

Natalie K. Wight represents the Defendant. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 10, 2014, Plaintiffs Karly Greico, as the personal representative for 

the estate of James Harrison Georgeson, and Kaiden Haight initiated this action by 

filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, 

Medford Division. ECF No. 1. Ms. Greico brings suit under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act (“FTCA”) for the alleged wrongful death of Mr. Georgeson and Ms. 

Haight also brings suit under the FTCA for personal injuries arising out of the 

same set of events. Id. On November 10, 2014, the Government filed the instant 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. ECF No. 10. The Court granted in part 

Case 1:14-cv-00933-RHW Document 64 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 3
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ~ 2 

\\ord.local\shares\home\cweller\desktop\ord.deny.def.msj.docx 

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

and denied in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 29. Defendant now 

moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ sole remaining claim, the decision to use 

lethal force. ECF No. 35. Plaintiffs responded in opposition on August 31, 2015 

and Defendant replied in support of their motion on September 14, 2015. ECF Nos. 

52 and 57. 

DISCUSSION 

Summary judgment may be granted to a moving party who demonstrates “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). The moving party bears the 

initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 

(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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (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 [trier-of-fact] 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. A dispute concerning any 

such fact is “genuine” only where the evidence is such that the trier-of-fact could 

find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. “[A] party opposing a properly supported 

motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of 

his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue 

for trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. 

v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288–89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968) 

(holding that a party is only entitled to proceed to trial if it presents sufficient, 

Case 1:14-cv-00933-RHW Document 64 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 3
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ~ 3 

\\ord.local\shares\home\cweller\desktop\ord.deny.def.msj.docx 

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

probative evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, rather than resting on 

mere allegations). Moreover, “[c]onclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and 

moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary 

judgment. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). In 

ruling upon a summary judgment motion, a court must construe the facts, as well 

as all rational inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party, Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007), 

and only evidence which would be admissible at trial may be considered, Orr v. 

Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). 

After carefully considering the oral argument, the memoranda filed in support 

of the motion, the memorandum filed in opposition, and also resolving all rational 

inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that there are genuine 

issues of material fact that must be resolved at trial. As such, the Court denies 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. A new scheduling order will be 

issued in a separate filing. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 35, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 

Order and forward copies to counsel. 

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2015. 

s/Robert H. Whaley 

ROBERT H. WHALEY 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 1:14-cv-00933-RHW Document 64 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3