Garcia Hernandez v. VanVeen
2:14-cv-01493
| D. Nev. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- On Dec. 18, 2012, defendant truck driver Case VanVeen struck a Dodge driven by Ricardo Hernandez; plaintiff Maria Garcia Hernandez was a front-seat passenger.
- There were two impacts: an initial rear-end collision by the truck and a subsequent side-swipe when the truck merged with the Dodge in its blind spot; both vehicles later pulled over on the left median.
- Plaintiff asserted causes of action including negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, negligent training/supervision, and sought punitive damages based on an alleged brief attempt by VanVeen to flee the scene after the first collision.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action and separately for summary judgment on punitive damages; plaintiff did not oppose the first motion and opposed the punitive-damages motion.
- Plaintiff moved to strike defendants’ fraud affirmative defenses under Rule 9(b); defendants contended the defenses were sufficiently pleaded and discovery had occurred on them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent entrustment, hiring, and training/supervision claims survive summary judgment | Hernandez did not oppose — claims should proceed | Defendants moved for summary judgment on those claims | Granted for defendants; judgment for defendants on negligent entrustment, hiring, and training/supervision |
| Whether punitive damages are warranted under Nevada law (NRS 42.005) | Failure to stop immediately after initial collision shows attempted flight and supports punitive damages | A brief post-impact failure to stop, without evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice, is insufficient | Granted for defendants; summary judgment bars punitive damages because plaintiff offered no clear-and-convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice |
| Adequacy of defendants’ fraud affirmative defenses under Rule 9(b) | Defendants’ fraud defenses fail to meet Rule 9(b) particularity and should be struck | Defendants amended pleadings with time/place/circumstance detail and discovery supports the defenses | Denied; court finds the amended defenses sufficiently particular and not subject to striking |
| Whether factual disputes about brief attempt to flee preclude summary judgment on punitive damages | Brief attempt to flee creates a genuine dispute and supports punitive damages submission | Even if there was a brief attempt, without additional culpable conduct it does not meet Nevada’s punitive-damages standard | Held for defendants — factual dispute insufficient as a matter of law to show oppression, fraud, or malice |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (role of court at summary judgment; weighing evidence)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (construing disputed facts for nonmoving party)
- Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162 (court’s role in assessing sufficiency of evidence for punitive-damages instruction)
- Terrell v. Central Wash. Asphalt, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (example where jury could find punitive damages based on conscious disregard and post-crash flight)