Kawamura V Boyd Gaming Corp

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 georgia;}{
\f4 serif;}{
\f5 sans-serif;}{
\f6 Source Sans Pro;}{
\f7 Courier New;}{
\f8 monospace;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj \paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080
\margr1080 \headery720 \footery720 \itap0 \cols2
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17
\brdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17
\brdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
Kawamura v. Boyd Gaming Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d (2015)
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qr \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql
\clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql
\clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \i0
}
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445f
ffffff8a969f6913ff68931fff9f5f69241f5852af68d38fcddc4f58326fac294f8a868fac193fcdabe
fab985fcdfc7fef5eef58022f8a35efef6effde5d2fac092fffaf6f9ac6ffffcfafde8d7fef7f1f9b27
9f6862cf8aa6af79e56f79c53f58327fef1e7fde3cefeeee2f9b076f79a4efef8f4f58123f58224f9ae
72feefe4f58021f9ae71fac295fffaf7fcdabffef7f2f9af73f9b177f8ac6ef9b47cf8a15bf6872ef79
648fef5edf9b278fcd9bdf9b782f9b57efbc89ffde3cffffefdf6872df8aa6bfcd6b8fac59af9b781fa
bc8bfffbf8fac091fac396fbceaaf8a461f68e39f6882ffabe8dfabf8ff9b884f79c52fdeadbfeede0f
68c36f89f58fcdcc3fde0c9fef0e5fef3eaf68f3cfbcaa2f8a867f9b37afaba87f68b35fde7d6fabf90
fffcfbfaba86fde7d5f6903efffdfcfef4ecf68f3bfde1cafcdfc6fbd1affbcea9fcd6b7f68a33f7944
4fbcba5f58429fcdec6f9af74f8a25df58428f7a461fef4edfdede0fde6d4fde7d4f9b680fbc69cfbc8
a0f9b37bfac9a1f69240f79d54fcd4b4f9b883f68e3afef8f3fdebddfde2cbf7984cf8a35ff6882efef
3ebf9bd8cfcd4b5feecdef8a562fde6d3fef9f4fcdbc1f9bc8afcd8bcf8ab6dfef8f2fcd7b9fffbf7fe
efe3f79546f8aa69f79f57fde1cbfcd3b3fcd2b1f8a25cfcd3b2fde2ccfac599fac397f9b379fcd8bbf
bd2b0fef2e9fcd5b6fac79ef8a664f8a460f68a32fac090fffbf9fef2e8f8ab6cfde4d0f7994df6903d
f79749fffefcf79e55f8a766f8a059f68830f7974afde2cdfbcca6fabd8cf57f2000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000007df8d2030000000174524e530040e6d86600000009
7048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002814944415478da636680023eb5570ce186e2a55b85b
5f54d94595f337247083ee592d448fdcda26527d272e93da364d58d865d10c58b1f7a9d67708e7cf976
82a87fe1ca5469f97b50539860c62dfb67c1f029a9f211c3d7ae33bff2ffb03046ae53e3dac4106b76e
2b9c17235a9598c8caa5f179f80a80d94eeb9c9c0a0ef22c1a09de8f891e168e14d98292c3046e2ca55
271e247d9cc1a0cae067ca607583618efd56be2f0f7318b4b215661d7efa9289e1d07b67a8e3f8e3384
d84dfaa30c830f4de7f64c0f09841fe11ba71210c9f18945efc3fc3d0d5744389618d0483e77cb587bb
27763ebb96cdc0f0e6a6fb1f0686fb309b972c5d9dea9ad4fd428381e7bbc84986bf0cd761a630c318f
7150ffeee3fd478f6cb0ce15bd767fff9f1e3b2d0e36a4ff1d97a1f8006b1fe7af31d6875d4ca9f20a5
39792fdb7f9dbffd4131e6c16f3981f7e12f9f5dfcc7800e84cc6dd80c380a7c657818fa39f33475c49
73130f0aa30ed2be9616010601602aae0dac70f56e9b24f3fa84f41912189792fe7c234366b5646064c
e0acee309ba18c9d992d8c41649f3b4c542c67df0e84714ae0f099b98f8d4d7b5f36833e27f36603860
033f57c060ccf3230be9d767ff7d115e98bdf7ee60a65c8bd2eae7fb7dc7ff757a5b65d1f193836f01d
077a396aaec04f95b7ba519fde581d7ffef3da1fdbe9c18f199ecd5977e90ba671c59c6699bf187e5aa
c7ac7b09cbd63d64b9f131cbb2523c3b8eec51d60889bc37803e8c650f725ffdeb1ff09c9397de1d7c7
4ec9dd550276eb1916720b3c7a8969dcbee0e9124f182c7a7ffd62f8bfebdb4b869b759f0a369e8dde9
b92cbc070d1e21d3029fcbb76f0298383ef8997a0e427be85e3eae7d99f6f3004aff2ef861b0200a155
f504c5b3927b0000000049454e44ae426082}}
\u169\'3f 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \qr \i0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\li0 \f2 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols2{\ids0 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136b480ad2_Target}{\*\bkmkend
I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136b480ad2_Target}
\par
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
2015 WL 4622622
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
\par
}
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
Calvin KAWAMURA and Jeanie Kawamura, Plaintiff(s),
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
v.
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, et al., Defendant(s).
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
No. 2:13\u8211\'3fCV\u8211\'3f203 JCM (GWF).
\par
}
}
}
{\f3 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
|
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Signed Aug. 3, 2015.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf20 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_attorneysAndLawFirms_1}{\*\bkmkend co_attorneysAndLawFirms_1}
Attorneys and Law Firms
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?
findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0302021501&originatingDoc=I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136b
480ad2&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
mentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
Anthony Ciulla
}}}
, Deaner Deaner Scann Malan & Larsen, Las Vegas, NE,
}
Edmund K. Saffery
}}}
,
}
Regan M. Iwao
}}}
,
}
Scott K.D. Shishido
}}}
,
}
Thomas Benedict
}}}
, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff(s).
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Salvatore C. Gugino
}}}
\sb200
,
}
Thomas D. Dillard
}}}
\sb200
,
}
Walter R. Cannon
}}}
\sb200
, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant(s).
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf20 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_opinion_1}{\*\bkmkend co_opinion_1}
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I54fc301c89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I54fc301c89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
ORDER
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
JAMES C. MAHAN
}}}
\sa200
\sb200
, District Judge.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_999_1_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_999_1_1}
*1
}
}
Presently before the court is defendants Boyd Gaming Corporation and M.S.W., Inc.,
dba Main Street Station
}
{\f2 \b1 \chcbpat32 \fs20 \cf19 \i0
Casino
}
}
}
Brewery Hotel\rquote s (collectively \u8220\'3fdefendants\u8221\'3f) motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. # 207). Plaintiff Calvin Kawamura (hereinafter
\u8220\'3fplaintiff\u8221\'3f) filed a response, (doc. # 215), and defendants filed
a reply, (doc. # 225). Plaintiff then filed a sur-reply, (doc. # 229), and
defendants filed a response to the sur-reply, (doc. # 230).
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_B00112036815529_ID0}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_B00112036815529_ID0}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnote_B00112036815529_1" }{\fldrslt
{\super \f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \cf5 \i0
1
}}}
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Also before the court is defendants\rquote motion for partial summary judgment on
plaintiff\rquote s gross negligence and punitive damages claims. (Doc. # 206).
Plaintiff filed a response, (doc. # 213), and defendants filed a reply, (doc. #
223).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Finally before the court is defendants\rquote amended renewed motion to exclude
expert opinion testimony. (Doc. # 210).
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
2
}}}
}
Plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants\rquote motion to exclude. The
court construes defendants\rquote motion as a motion
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine.
\par
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I54fc301d89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I54fc301d89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
I. Background
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Spouses Calvin and Jeanie Kawamura (collectively \u8220\'3fthe Kawamuras\u8221\'3f)
are residents of the state of Hawaii. The incident at issue occurred when the
Kawamuras visited Las Vegas in May 2010.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On or about May 26, 2010, the Kawamuras were gambling on the main
}
casino
}
}
}
floor of the Main Street Station
}
Casino
}
}
}
in downtown Las Vegas. At some point during the late evening to early morning
hours, Calvin left Jeanie in search of the men\rquote s restroom. While in the
restroom, an individual later identified as Christopher Corson
(\u8220\'3fCorson\u8221\'3f) assaulted Calvin, knocked him unconscious, and robbed
him. Corson was homeless and had allegedly been hiding in the men\rquote s
restroom.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Paramedics transported Calvin to the emergency room, where he underwent several x-
rays and
}
entityType=mproc&entityId=Iba53551b475411db9765f9243f53508a&originationContext=docu
ment&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0" }
{\fldrslt
CT scans
}}}
. Emergency room physicians determined that Calvin sustained
}
entityType=injury&entityId=Ic94cf3c1475411db9765f9243f53508a&originationContext=doc
ument&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0" }
{\fldrslt
multiple fractures to his face
}}}
and skull, and that his brain was bleeding.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Calvin left the hospital on May 29, 2010, and the couple returned to Hawaii on June
2, 2010. Calvin continued to experience complications from the assault, which
required him to undergo additional
}
entityType=mproc&entityId=Iba53551b475411db9765f9243f53508a&originationContext=docu
{\fldrslt
CT scans
}}}
and multiple
}
entityType=mproc&entityId=Ib60fb8b3475411db9765f9243f53508a&originationContext=docu
{\fldrslt
burr hole
}}}
evacuations.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
3
}}}
}
Plaintiff alleges that he and his wife live in constant fear that Calvin will
suffer another brain bleed, are always \u8220\'3fon edge,\u8221\'3f and that
Calvin\rquote s cognitive abilities have declined significantly as a result of the
attack.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff has retained Ken Braunstein (hereinafter \u8220\'3fBraunstein\u8221\'3f)
as an expert witness. Braunstein is an expert in
}
casino
}
}
}
}
security
}
}
}
. Defendants filed a motion
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
to exclude Braunstein\rquote s testimony for failing to meet the standard for
expert witness testimony in federal court. (Doc. # 210).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I54fc301e89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I54fc301e89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
II. Legal standards
\par
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
a. Summary judgment
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that \u8220\'3fthere is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.\u8221\'3f
}
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR56&originatingDoc=I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136b
480ad2&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
mentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)
}}}
. A principal purpose of summary judgment is \u8220\'3fto isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims.\u8221\'3f
}
findType=Y&serNum=1986132677&pubNum=0000780&originatingDoc=I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa1
36b480ad2&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_780_323&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt
1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_323" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
}
}
477 U.S. 317, 323\u8211\'3f24(1986)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*2
}
}
In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis.
\u8220\'3fWhen the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof
at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed
verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving
party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact
on each issue material to its case.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc.,
}
}
213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir.2000)
}}}
(citations omitted).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or
defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting
evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party\rquote s case; or
(2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient
to establish an element essential to that party\rquote s case on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Celotex,
}
}
477 U.S. at 323\u8211\'3f24
}}}
. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be
denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party\rquote s evidence.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
}
}
398 U.S. 144, 159\u8211\'3f60(1970)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the
opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
}
}
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)
}}}
. To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not
establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that
\u8220\'3fthe claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to
resolve the parties\rquote differing versions of the truth at trial.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass\rquote n,
}
}
809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir.1987)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely
on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
36b480ad2&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1045&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1045" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Taylor v. List,
}
}
880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989)
}}}
. Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the
pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a
genuine issue for trial.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Celotex,
}
}
477 U.S. at 324
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
At summary judgment, a court\rquote s function is not to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
}
}
477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)
}}}
. The evidence of the nonmovant is \u8220\'3fto be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in his favor.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Id.
}
}
at 255
}}}
. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
id.
}
}
at 249\u8211\'3f50
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I54fc301f89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I54fc301f89a911e79bef99c0ee06c}
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
b. Motion in limine
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fThe court must decide any preliminary question about whether ... evidence
is admissible.\u8221\'3f
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000607&cite=USFRER104&originatingDoc=I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136b
480ad2&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
Fed.R.Evid. 104
}}}
. Motions
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
are procedural mechanisms by which the court can make evidentiary rulings in
advance of trial, often to preclude the use of unfairly prejudicial evidence.
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United States v. Heller,
}
}
551 F .3d 1108, 1111\u8211\'3f12 (9th Cir.2009)
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brodit v. Cambra,
}
}
350 F.3d 985, 1004\u8211\'3f05 (9th Cir.2003)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*3
}
}
\u8220\'3fAlthough the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court\rquote s
inherent authority to manage the course of trials.\u8221\'3f
}
}
36b480ad2&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_780_41&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1
.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_41" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luce v. United States,
}
}
469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1980)
}}}
. Motions
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
may be used to exclude or admit evidence in advance of trial.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
Fed.R.Evid. 103
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United States v. Williams,
}
}
939 F.2d 721, 723 (9th Cir.1991)
}}}
(affirming district court\rquote s ruling
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
that prosecution could admit impeachment evidence under
}
Federal Rule of Evidence 609
}}}
).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Judges have broad discretion when ruling on motions
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine. See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,
}
}
316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir.2002)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trevino v. Gates,
}
}
99 F.3d 911, 922 (9th Cir.1999)
}}}
(\u8220\'3fThe district court has considerable latitude in performing a Rule 403
balancing test and we will uphold its decision absent clear abuse of
discretion.\u8221\'3f).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3f[I]n
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
limine
}
}
rulings are not binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his mind during
the course of a trial.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ohler v. United States,
}
}
529 U.S. 753, 758 n. 3 (2000)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
accord
}
}
36b480ad2&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_780_41&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1
.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_41" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luce,
}
}
469 U.S. at 41
}}}
(noting that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
rulings are always subject to change, especially if the evidence unfolds in an
unanticipated manner). \u8220\'3fDenial of a motion
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in limine
}
}
does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be
admitted at trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court
is unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be
excluded.\u8221\'3f
}
36b480ad2&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Conboy v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
}
}
no. 2:11\u8211\'3fcv\u8211\'3f1649\u8211\'3fJCM\u8211\'3fCWH, 2013 WL 1701069, at
*1 (D. Nev. April 18, 2013)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I54fc302089a911e79bef99c0ee06c}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I54fc302089a911e79bef99c0ee06c}
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
c. Expert testimony
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
An expert witness may testify at trial if the expert\rquote s \u8220\'3fspecialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine
a fact in issue.\u8221\'3f
}
Fed.R.Evid. 702
}}}
. A witness must be \u8220\'3fqualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education\u8221\'3f and may testify \u8220\'3fif (1) the
testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product
of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles
and methods reliably to the facts of the case.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Id.; see also
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael,
}
}
526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999)
}}}
. Expert testimony is liberally admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Daubert,
}
}
509 U.S. at 588
}}}
(noting that
}
Rule 702
}}}
is part of the \u8220\'3fliberal thrust of the Federal Rules and their general
approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony\u8221\'3f);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
}
Fed.R.Evid. 702
}}}
(advisory committee notes to 2000 amendments) (\u8220\'3f[R]ejection of expert
testimony is the exception rather than the rule.\u8221\'3f).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The \u8220\'3ftrial judge must ensure that any and all [expert] testimony or
evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Daubert,
}
}
509 U.S. at 589
}}}
. \u8220\'3fConcerning the reliability of non-scientific testimony ..., the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Daubert
}
}
factors (peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc.) simply are not
applicable to this kind of testimony, whose reliability depends heavily on the
knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory
behind it.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
}
}
373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir.2004)
}}}
(citations omitted).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*4
}
}
In such cases, the trial court\rquote s gatekeeping role under
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Daubert
}
}
involves probing the expert\rquote s knowledge and experience.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
id.
}
}
at 1018
}}}
. \u8220\'3fIt is the proponent of the expert who has the burden of proving
admissibility.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharms ., Inc.,
}
}
89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir.1996)
}}}
. Admissibility of the expert\rquote s proposed testimony must be established by a
preponderance of the evidence.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Daubert,
}
}
509 U.S. at 592 n. 10
}}}
(citation omitted).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
III. Discussion
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants move for summary judgment in regards to plaintiff\rquote s negligence
claims generally, which stem from the events of May 26, 2010. (Doc. # 207).
Seemingly in the alternative, defendants also move for partial summary judgment in
their favor on the issues of gross negligence and punitive damages in regards to
the events of May 26, 2010. (Doc. # 206).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
a. Negligence
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff sues defendants on a negligent
}
security
}
}
}
theory. To prevail, a plaintiff generally must show that: (1) the defendant owed a
duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach
was the proximate cause of the plaintiff\rquote s injury; and (4) the plaintiff
suffered damages.
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr.,
}
}
805 P.2d 589, 590 (Nev.1991)
}}}
. In a negligence action, the court should consider summary judgment with caution.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sims v. Gen. Tel. & Elec.,
}
}
815 P.2d 151 (Nev.1991)
}}}
. The court will examine each element for any triable issues of material fact.
Accordingly, the first inquiry is whether defendants owed any duty to plaintiff.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
i. Duty
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff argues that defendants were negligent because they owed a duty to
plaintiff and the other guests of Main Street Station to place adequate
}
security
}
}
}
near the restroom where plaintiff was robbed.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Nevada law evaluates the foreseeability element of duty in innkeeper liability
cases by evaluating both the \u8220\'3flocation and character of the
[defendant\rquote s] business\u8221\'3f and the prior similar crimes committed on
the premises.
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp.,
}
}
864 P.2d 796, 800\u8211\'3f01 (Nev.1993)
}}}
. Plaintiff and his expert maintain that Main Street Station Hotel and
}
Casino\rquote s
}
}
}
neighborhood is \u8220\'3finherently dangerous\u8221\'3f and they present
statistics showing that the
}
casino\rquote s
}
}
}
neighborhood has an \u8220\'3faverage risk of crime ... fifteen times
higher\u8221\'3f than that of the entire United States. (Doc. # 213 at 11).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants do not deny that their
}
casino
}
}
}
is in an inherently dangerous neighborhood. However, defendants assert that Main
Street Station is not inherently dangerous simply because its surrounding
neighborhood is dangerous. Defendants state that plaintiff\rquote s statistics
provide \u8220\'3fabsolutely no evidence about what is going on inside a particular
}
casino
}
}
}
.\u8221\'3f (Doc. # 223 at 7).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The court finds defendants\rquote assessment of plaintiff\rquote s statistics
unpersuasive. Any business that opens its doors to the public is likely to be
affected by the segment of the public that lives closest to its premises.
Neighborhood crime statistics would provide important information for analyzing the
foreseeability of a crime on Main Street Station\rquote s premises.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*5
}
}
Plaintiff offers evidence of prior crimes at Main Street Station and maintains
that these crimes are sufficiently similar to his assault and
}
robbery
}
}
}
. Plaintiff notes an attempted
}
robbery
}
}
}
outside another of the
}
casino\rquote s
}
}
}
restrooms and an \u8220\'3fassault of a wheelchair bound guest in the
}
casino
}
}
}
restroom.\u8221\'3f (Doc. # 215 at 28). Plaintiff also notes numerous other
incidents involving transients loitering in
}
casino
}
}
}
restrooms, \u8220\'3fundesirables\u8221\'3f stalking
}
casino
}
}
}
patrons, and other assaults and batteries on the premises. (Doc. # 215 at
28\u8211\'3f29).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants counter that none of the prior crimes noted by plaintiff involved a
serious injury. (Doc. # 225 at 12\u8211\'3f13). However, the foreseeability
standard is silent as to whether a given crime must involve a similar degree of
injury to the victim to be considered a prior similar crime. Two of
plaintiff\rquote s noted crimes did occur in hallways leading to Main Street
Station\rquote s men\rquote s restrooms. A reasonable jury could conclude that
defendants had notice of enough prior similar crimes to conclude that a crime in or
around a restroom was foreseeable.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The location and character of defendants\rquote
}
casino
}
}
}
and the prior similar crimes committed inside the
}
casino
}
}
}
all indicate that a jury could find that the assault against plaintiff was
foreseeable. Therefore, triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants owed
a duty to plaintiff. Accordingly, the court will deny defendants\rquote motion for
summary judgment.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
b. Gross negligence and punitive damages
\par
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
i. Gross negligence
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Gross negligence is \u8220\'3fvery great negligence, or the absence of slight
diligence, or the want of even scant care ... [or] indifference to present legal
duty ... [or] utter forgetfulness of legal obligations so far as other persons
maybe affected.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hart v. Kline,
}
}
116 P.2d 672, 672 (Nev.1941)
}}}
. The Ninth Circuit has held that \u8220\'3f[w]hat is \u8216\'3fgross\rquote in
[a] particular case is a matter of fact that must be left to the determination of
the reasonable persons making up the trier of fact.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Chem. Bank v. Sec. Pac. Nat\rquote l Bank,
}
}
20 F.3d 375 (9th Cir.1994)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, \u8220\'3f
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR56&originatingDoc=I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136b
480ad2&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
mentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
Rule 56(c)
}}}
mandates the entry of summary judgment, after an adequate time for discovery and
upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party\rquote s case, and on which
that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Celotex,
}
}
477 U.S. at 322
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff alleges that defendants\rquote conduct was grossly negligent because the
\u8220\'3fstagnant\u8221\'3f policies and procedures in Main Street Station\rquote
s
}
security
}
}
}
department allowed \u8220\'3fundesirables\u8221\'3f to enter the
}
casino
}
}
}
and commit crimes. (Doc. # 213 at 11). Further, plaintiff alleges that defendants
knew that these \u8220\'3fundesirables\u8221\'3f posed a higher risk to the
elderly, yet they trained their
}
casino
}
}
}
}
security
}
}
}
to focus more on watching the flow of
}
casino
}
}
}
money than protecting
}
casino
}
}
}
guests. Plaintiff maintains that these shortcomings prove that defendants were
grossly negligent.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*6
}
}
Defendants respond in two ways. First, they assert that the actions
}
casino
}
}
}
}
security
}
}
}
personnel took after the attack amounted to reasonable care, or at least rose to
the level of \u8220\'3fs cant care\u8221\'3f that allows them to evade accusations
of gross negligence. Plaintiff responds by stating that defendants\rquote post-
accident actions have no bearing on whether they took enough pre-accident steps to
prove that they were not grossly negligent when they failed to protect plaintiff.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Second, defendants maintain that Corson attacked plaintiff so quickly as to make
the harm plaintiff endured completely unforeseeable. Defendants state that the
homeless assailant entered the restroom, attacked the plaintiff, and
left\u8212\'3fall within one minute (Doc. # 223 at 15).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants base their assertion that they were not grossly negligent largely on
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Racine v. PHW Las Vegas, LLC,
}
}
46 F.Supp.3d 1028 (D.Nev.2014)
}}}
, which is not binding on this court. In
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Racine,
}
}
a man sexually assaulted a female guest at the Planet Hollywood Resort and
}
Casino
}
}
}
after he had been following several other female guests. The
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Racine
}
}
court found that Planet Hollywood was not grossly negligent because it
\u8220\'3fhad
}
security
}
}
}
personnel\u8221\'3f on the premises who \u8220\'3ftook statements from\u8221\'3f
the victims; that the
}
security
}
}
}
personnel contacted Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; and that
}
36b480ad2&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_7903_1044&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb
lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_7903_1044" }
{\fldrslt
Planet Hollywood \u8220\'3fmaintained video surveillance of the premises.\u8221\'3f
46 F.Supp.3d at 1044
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff responds that defendants misinterpret
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Racine.
}
}
Plaintiff asserts that defendants\rquote actions are distinguishable from Planet
Hollywood\rquote s actions in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Racine
}
}
because Planet Hollywood took steps before Ms. Racine\rquote s attack, while
defendants simply took corrective steps only after Corson attacked him.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The care involved in tort analysis focuses on the reasonable care a defendant takes
to \u8220\'3fprevent\u8221\'3f a plaintiff from sustaining a foreseeable injury.
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kensinger v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours,
}
}
244 Fed. Appx. 114, 115\u8211\'3f16 (9th Cir.2007)
}}}
. Defendants\rquote focus on their
}
security
}
}
}
officers\rquote post-accident actions does not absolve defendants from a finding
of gross negligence as a matter of law. Therefore, the court will deny
defendants\rquote partial summary judgment motion.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ii. Punitive damages
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is
guilty of oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice in order to receive an
award of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
punitive damages.
}
}
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000363&cite=NVST42.005&originatingDoc=I63d524973acc11e5b4bafa136
b480ad2&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
N.R.S. \u167\'3f 42.005(1)
}}}
. This
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
standard
}
}
requires that the plaintiff produce evidence \u8220\'3fso clear as to leave no
substantial doubt.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wynn v. Smith,
}
}
16 P.3d 424, 431 (Nev.2001)
}}}
, that the defendant \u8220\'3facted with a culpable state of mind.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener,
}
}
192 P.3d 243, 255 (Nev.2008)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Where a plaintiff has not met this burden, the court may deny a claim for punitive
damages as a matter of law.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See e.g.,
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Warmbrodt v. Blanchard,
}
}
692 P.3d 1282, 1286 (Nev.1984) (superseded by statute on other grounds) (holding
permissible a trial court\rquote s refusal to give a punitive damages instruction
where evidence to support such damages had not been received in the case).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*7
}
}
Defendants maintain that plaintiff does not have clear and convincing evidence of
punitive damages, and they state that plaintiff pleads the boilerplate language for
punitive damages without alleging any specific facts showing oppression, fraud, or
malice. Plaintiff alleges that defendants acted with either oppression or implied
malice when they deliberately failed to avoid the \u8220\'3fprobable harmful
consequences\u8221\'3f of vagrants stalking their patrons in \u8220\'3fvulnerable
locations.\u8221\'3f (Doc. # 213 at 20).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Further, plaintiff alleges that defendants\rquote failure to keep watch over their
patrons was deliberate because the
}
casino
}
}
}
and its
}
security
}
}
}
forces were more concerned with \u8220\'3fwatching the money during scheduled pit
drops and slot drops.\u8221\'3f (Doc. # 215 at 9\u8211\'3f12).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff offers this explanation as an alternative to other possible theories for
defendants\rquote conduct, such as gross or simple negligence. The court finds
that enough evidence exists to allow a factfinder to determine whether defendants
acted with oppression or implied malice. Therefore, the court will deny
defendants\rquote partial motion for summary judgment on the issues of gross
negligence and punitive damages.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
c. Motion in limine\u8212\'3fexpert testimony
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants seek to exclude Ken Braunstein as plaintiff\rquote s
}
security
}
}
}
expert. Braunstein has served as an expert witness for
}
casino
}
}
}
}
security
}
}
}
cases for over 35 years. Presumably, Braunstein will opine that defendants were
grossly negligent for failing to post adequate
}
security
}
}
}
near the restroom where plaintiff was assaulted.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In his December 22, 2014, deposition, Braunstein refers to a report in which he
drew four conclusions: (1) that defendants\rquote
}
security
}
}
}
is
}
inadequate
}
}
}
; (2) that the Main Street Station
}
casino
}
}
}
is poorly managed; (3) that defendants\rquote hiring process for
}
casino
}
}
}
}
security
}
}
}
officers is lacking; and (4) that the
}
casino
}
}
}
failed to follow its own procedures. (Doc. # 210\u8211\'3f1).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants seek to exclude Braunstein\rquote s testimony. According to defendants,
Braunstein\rquote s opinions include legal conclusions that could
\u8220\'3fimproperly determine the outcome of the case.\u8221\'3f (Doc. # 210 at
2). However, Rule 704 states that \u8220\'3f[a]n opinion is not objectionable just
because it embraces an ultimate issue.\u8221\'3f
}
Fed.R.Evid. 704
}}}
. \u8220\'3fThat said, an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to [his] legal
conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law. Similarly, instructing
the jury as to applicable law is the distinct and exclusive province of the
court.\u8221\'3f
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc.,
}
}
523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2008)
}}}
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The court finds that Braunstein, based on his specialized knowledge in the field,
may offer his expert opinion on defendants\rquote degree of negligence in regards
to its
}
security
}
}
}
practices. However, Braunstein may not instruct the jury that defendants were
negligent as a matter of law when they made their
}
security
}
}
}
decisions. Accordingly, the court will deny defendants\rquote motion to exclude
the expert testimony of Ken Braunstein.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li200 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IV. Conclusion
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*8
}
}
Accordingly,
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants\rquote motion for
summary judgment, (doc. # 207), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants\rquote motion for partial summary judgment,
(doc. # 206), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants\rquote amended renewed motion to exclude the
expert testimony of witness Ken Braunstein, (doc. # 210), be, and the same hereby
is, DENIED. Defendants\rquote renewed motion, (doc. # 209), is DENIED as moot.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant\rquote s motion to strike, (doc. # 233), is
DENIED as moot.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf20 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_allCitations_1}{\*\bkmkend co_allCitations_1}
All Citations
\par
}
}
Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 4622622
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0 \i0 {
\clpadl200 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Footnotes
\par
}
}
}\f5 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f5 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnote_B00112036815529_1}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnote_B00112036815529_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_B00112036815529_ID0" }
{\fldrslt
1
}\f5 \super \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs24 \cf5 \i0 }}
\par
}
}
}\f5 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs24 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff moved for leave to file a sur-reply in this matter. (Doc. # 226).
Magistrate Judge Foley granted plaintiff\rquote s motion and allowed plaintiff to
file a sur-reply and defendants to file a response to plaintiff\rquote s sur-reply.
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Plaintiff then impermissibly filed a reply to defendants\rquote response to its
sur-reply. (Doc. # 232). Defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff\rquote s
reply. (Doc. # 233). Plaintiff filed a response to defendants motion to strike,
(doc. # 234), asserting that the court granted him leave to file a reply, because
the notice of electronic filing on the case docket stated that plaintiff\rquote s
reply to defendants\rquote response was due by July 24, 2015. (
}
{\f5 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
doc. # 230). An automated deadline from the clerk\rquote s office is not the same
as, nor does it override the express language of the court\rquote s order.
Magistrate Judge Foley expressly granted the plaintiff only a sur-reply, and
defendants only a response to the sur-reply. The court will not consider
plaintiff\rquote s improperly filed reply to its sur-reply. Accordingly, the court
will deny defendants\rquote motion to strike as moot.
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}\f5 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f5 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00222036815529_1}
{\fldrslt
2
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Defendants\rquote renewed motion to exclude expert opinion testimony, (doc. #
209), is moot.
\par
}
}
}
}
}\f5 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f5 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00332036815529_1}
{\fldrslt
3
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f5 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
A burr hole evacuation is a medical procedure in which doctors drill a hole into
the patient\rquote s skull in order to remove blood clots forming in the brain.
\par
}
}
}
}
}\f5 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0 \i0 {
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf21 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf21 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f5 \b1 \ql \ri24 \fs16 \cf21 \i0
End of Document
\par
}
}
}\f5 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf21 \i0 \intbl \cell
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f5 \b0 \ri24 \fs16 \cf21 \qr \i0
\u169\'3f 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
\par
}
}
}\f5 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf21 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}\sect }

Kawamura V Boyd Gaming Corp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kawamura V Boyd Gaming Corp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

{\rtf1 \ansi

You might also like