Jessica Simpson v. Linda Gipson
75029-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Jessica Simpson sued Whidbey Island Public Hospital District over events from May 2013 alleging assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; hospital moved for summary judgment and the court granted it in December 2015.
- Simpson did not appeal the hospital dismissal; she then filed a second, pro se suit naming Linda Gipson (the nurse) directly, asserting the same facts and claims.
- Gipson moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata/collateral estoppel because Simpson’s prior, identical action against the hospital had been decided on the merits.
- New counsel (Victor Ro) entered four days before the summary judgment hearing and orally requested a 90‑day continuance under CR 56(f) to prepare, but did not specify what discovery or evidence would be obtained or how it would create a genuine issue of material fact.
- The trial court denied the continuance and granted Gipson’s summary judgment; Simpson appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in denying the CR 56(f) continuance request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a CR 56(f) continuance before ruling on summary judgment | Simpson (through new counsel) argued she needed additional time to prepare a response and possibly amend the complaint; requested a continuance to obtain necessary evidence | Gipson argued Simpson offered no reason for delay, failed to identify what evidence or discovery was needed, and the claim was barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel from the prior adjudication | Court held no abuse of discretion: Simpson failed to state what evidence additional discovery would produce or how it would create a genuine issue of material fact; denial affirmed and summary judgment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitzer v. Union Bank of California, 141 Wn.2d 539 (discusses standards for reviewing denial of CR 56(f) continuances)
- Coggle v. Snow, 56 Wn. App. 499 (plaintiff gave specifics about affidavits and witnesses when requesting continuance)
- Butler v. Joy, 116 Wn. App. 291 (denial of continuance was problematic where record did not show whether new counsel identified needed discovery or evidence)