1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LUKE HOTTMANN,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 6:15-cv-00541-TC

v. 

OPINION and ORDER

BRYCE HATCH, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 72)

and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

After having reviewed the legal principles and the Defendant’s Objections (ECF No. 74), I find 

no error and conclude it is correct. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 

1998). Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 72) is adopted in its entirety.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) and Defendants’ Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55) are both DENIED for the following reasons.

Case 6:15-cv-00541-TC Document 76 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 4
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an admiralty and maritime action brought pursuant to the Jones Act in which 

plaintiff alleges his back was injured while working aboard the “FN Newfie Adventure.” The 

parties agree that plaintiff sought and received treatment for a back injury. Defendants deny 

plaintiff was injured on the boat and contend that any injury occurred after his time on the vessel.

On July 29, 2016, the Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 

No. 55). On September 29, 2016, Judge Coffin heard oral arguments (ECF No. 71), and then 

issued his Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 72) on October 3, 2016, recommending that 

Defendants’ motion be denied. On October 19, 2016, Defendants filed their Objections (ECF 

No. 74). On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed his Response (ECF No. 75). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment shall be granted when the record shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material issues of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). 

The moving party has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 

(9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The court cannot weigh the evidence or determine the truth but may

only determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d

796, 800 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue of fact 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.

Case 6:15-cv-00541-TC Document 76 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 4
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

When a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the burden shifts to 

the opposing party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id at 

250. Conclusory allegations, unsupported by factual material, are insufficient to defeat a motion 

for summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the 

opposing party must, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Rule 56, designate specific facts 

which show there is a genuine issue for trial. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. In assessing whether

a party has met its burden, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).

DISCUSSION

In the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, they argue that Plaintiff’s 

punitive damages claim should be dismissed because, “Plaintiff cannot establish the requisite 

willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation...and there are no grounds 

upon which to find that Defendants’ denial of such benefits was willful or wanton and therefore 

there are no grounds for a punitive award.” (ECF No. 55 at pp.1-2).

In his Findings and Recommendation, Judge Coffin recommended that Defendants’ 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be denied, finding that, “Even if there were not manifest 

factual disputes present, it would be better to proceed to a full trial on the claims because in the 

circumstances of this case a fuller record will afford a more substantial basis for decision.” 

(Citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobbv Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Anderson v. Hodel, 899 F.2d 

766, 770-771 (9th Cir. 1990)). (ECF No. 72). In other words, Judge Coffin found that there 

remains a genuine dispute as to material issues of fact surrounding the plaintiff’s injuries and 

whether or not defendant’s actions were wanton and willful.

Case 6:15-cv-00541-TC Document 76 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 4
4 – OPINION AND ORDER

A ship owner’s mere assertion that an injury or illness did not occur in the service of the 

ship is not a conclusive “reasonable basis” or “colorable legal defense” that shields them from a 

punitive damages or attorneys’ fees award. See Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962); 

Deisler v. McCormack Aggregates, Co., 54 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir. 1995); Stermer v. Archer-DanielsMidland Co., 140 So.3d 879 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014). Because there exists a question 

regarding whether Defendants’ justification for denying Plaintiff’s maintenance and cure claim is 

rooted in pretext or a good faith belief, the claim for punitive damages must go to the jury and 

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment must be denied.

Although Plaintiff did not file any objections to Judge Coffin’s Findings and 

Recommendation which recommended denying their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

(ECF No. 52), I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 

1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 

(9th Cir. 1983). I find no error and conclude it is also correct. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is hereby ordered that Magistrate Judge Coffin’s Findings and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 72) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 55) are both DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2017.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00541-TC Document 76 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 4