DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Mark Anthony Hawkins (Hawkins) brings this action on behalf of himself and his daughter, Sparkle Hawkins (Sparkle), against Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) police officer William O'Brien. The plaintiffs allege that O'Brien acted unlawfully during an interaction with them on February 17, 2017. Before the Court are the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. 25, and O'Brien's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 27. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant O'Brien's cross-motion and deny the plaintiffs' motion.
On February 17, 2017, the plaintiffs
Citing solely to their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at this point, O'Brien drove his vehicle at a high speed into a crowd of pedestrians. See Pls.' Mot. at 1-2. They further allege that O'Brien "struck Mr. Hawkins['s] daughter, Sparkle, in the arm with the side view mirror." Id. at 2 (alterations adopted). They also allege that O'Brien then stopped his vehicle, pulled out his gun and pointed it at Hawkins. Id.
O'Brien vigorously disputes the plaintiffs' version of the facts. According to O'Brien's statement of material facts not in dispute (which the plaintiffs have not contested), O'Brien asked the crowd to disperse over the vehicle's P.A. system, and eventually, people began to move. See Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ¶ 21. He then pulled away from the curb. Id. As he was driving away, "people began banging on [his] police vehicle." Id. ¶ 22. O'Brien asserts that he was "[u]naware of why people were banging on his police vehicle" and that he "immediately stopped" the vehicle. Id. ¶ 23. He then opened his door to investigate the banging, and "fearing for his safety," he "kept his hand . . . positioned on his weapon . . . and removed his hand from his weapon when he determined that the angry crowd of people were not trying to attack him." Id. ¶ 24 (internal quotation marks omitted). He "was told that the mirror to his police vehicle struck Sparkle Hawkins." Id. ¶ 25. He also inspected his police vehicle and saw no sign of damage. Id. ¶ 27. A female Metropolitan Police Department officer in the area inspected Sparkle. Id. ¶ 28. O'Brien then left the scene and responded to his emergency call for service. Id. ¶ 29. According to O'Brien's statement of facts in dispute, he "dispute[s] the veracity" of the assertion that he struck Sparkle and he denies that he pointed his handgun at anyone. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute ¶¶ 4-5.
Both parties agree that Sparkle was not taken to the hospital on the day of the incident, but Hawkins and Sparkle's mother took her to Bowie Health Clinic the next day. See Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ¶¶ 30-31. The plaintiffs do not identify Sparkle's injuries and they agree that Sparkle did not sustain any mental injuries or seek mental health treatment. See id. ¶ 34. And they agree that Hawkins was not hurt and did not seek any medical treatment as a result of the incident, nor did he report or sustain any injury. Id. ¶ 32.
On August 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Dkt. 1-2. The defendants removed the case to federal court. See Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1-5. On April 27, 2018, the Court dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims. See Mem. Op. & Order at 20-21. Following discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Sparkle's assault, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims.
(2) Sparkle's battery claims against O'Brien; (3) Hawkins's and Sparkle's negligence claims against O'Brien relating to his driving; (4) Hawkins's and Sparkle's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against O'Brien in his individual capacity; and (5) Hawkins's and Sparkle's IIED claims against O'Brien.
A court must grant summary judgment "if the movant shows 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). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). And a dispute 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; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. "If there are no genuine issues of material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In response to a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "[T]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added in the original). A party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed "must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The court "need consider only the cited materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
"The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after 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's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "In such a situation, there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 322-23.
Contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 7(h), the plaintiffs have failed to cite to any evidence in the record that supports their motion for partial summary judgment or their opposition to O'Brien's cross-motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); LCvR 7(h)(1). Moreover, contrary to Local Rule 7(h), the plaintiffs have failed to include in their motion for partial summary judgment "a statement of material facts as to which. . . there is no genuine issue." Id. Nor have they included in their opposition to O'Brien's motion for summary judgment "a separate concise statement of genuine issues setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated." Id.
The plaintiffs' "Statement of Facts" in support of their motion for summary judgment cites exclusively to their complaint.
The plaintiffs' repeated citations only to their complaint fall far short of the required standard necessary to support or defend against a motion for summary judgment. The obligations of summary judgment "cannot be met by mere allegation or denial, but instead, require a showing by affirmative evidence." Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968) (granting summary judgment for defendant because of the "absence of any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint"). And the Supreme Court has "has unambiguously declared that the nonmoving party must `go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Frito-Lay, Inc., 863 F.2d at 1033 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). The plaintiffs' failure to point to any evidence in the record in support of their factual assertions is fatal to both their motion for partial summary judgment and their opposition to O'Brien's motion for summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (A party opposing a 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.").
Moreover, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, "the Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion." LCvR 7(h)(1); see also Oviedo v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 18-7037, 2020 WL 424944, at *7-8 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) (affirming grant of summary judgment against a pro se plaintiff who failed to dispute the defendant's statement of facts); Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (holding that district court may deem facts that do not comply with Rule 56(e) or the local rule as admitted because "the district court is under no obligation to sift through the record . . . in order to evaluate the merits of that party's case"). Because the plaintiffs have failed to contradict, with citations to the record, the factual assertions set forth in O'Brien's statement of material facts in dispute, pursuant to Local Rule 7(h)(1), the Court takes as admitted that O'Brien did not point his weapon at anyone; that the side view mirror on his vehicle did not hit Sparkle; and that he was not operating his vehicle at a high rate of speed. See Fed R. Civ. P 56(e)(2); Def.'s Mot. at 4-5; see also Burke v. Gould, 286 F.3d 513, 517 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ("This circuit has long upheld strict compliance with the district court's local rules on summary judgment when invoked by the district court."). Based on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with Rule 56 and Local Rule 7(h)(1), and for the reasons stated below, there is no genuine dispute of material fact in this case.
In the District of Columbia, an individual is subject to liability for assault if "(a) they act intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the other party is thereby put in such imminent apprehension." Acosta Orellana v. CropLife Int'l, 711 F.Supp.2d 81, 92 (D.D.C. 2010) (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). An individual "will not be held liable for assault for negligent or reckless behavior lacking the requisite intent to commit an assault." Id. And an "essential element of . . . assault is . . . intentional putting another in apprehension," and absent such an allegation a complaint is "clearly deficient." Id. (citing Madden v. D.C. Transit Sys., Inc., 307 A.2d 756, 757 (D.C. 1973) (emphasis in original)).
There is no evidence that O'Brien intended to put either Hawkins or Sparkle in imminent apprehension of harm. As explained in supra Part III.A, the plaintiffs have not pointed to any record evidence suggesting that O'Brien unholstered his weapon. In their motion for summary judgment, they assert that "O'Brien stopped his vehicle, [exited his] vehicle, pulled out his gun" and "pointed it at Mr. Hawkins as he approached Mr. Hawkins and Sparkle," but they cite only to the complaint to support these assertions. Pls.' Mot. at 2. Their "Statement of Facts in Dispute" in their opposition brief asserts that O'Brien "pulled his handgun and pointed it at Mr. Hawkins," but this assertion cites back to "ECF # 25-1 — Pls' Memo. at 2," which is the citation for their initial motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs point to no evidence in the record that supports any of these assertions of fact. In contrast, O'Brien's "Statement of Material Facts" in his cross-motion for summary judgment states that "he did not point his handgun and/or weapon at anyone" and cites to O'Brien's deposition and his answers to interrogatories. See Def.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute ¶ 5; O'Brien Dep. at 107:12-108:8, 141:6-18, 176:8-177:3; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 3 ("O'Brien's Answers to Interrogs.") at 3, Dkt. 27-5. Because the plaintiffs have not contradicted O'Brien's testimony with any evidence from the record, the Court considers the fact that O'Brien never raised his gun at anyone undisputed. See Fed R. Civ. P 56(e)(2). Without any evidence to support an essential element of assault—that O'Brien acted with the intent of placing Hawkins and Sparkle in imminent apprehension of harmful contact— the plaintiffs' assault claims fail.
A claim for battery is actionable "only if the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has committed (a) `harmful or offensive contact with a person,' which, (b) `result[s] from an act intended to cause that person to suffer such a contact,'" Acosta Orellana, 711 F. Supp. 2d at 90-91 (quoting Person v. Children's Hosp. Nat'l Med. Ctr., 562 A.2d 648, 650 (D.C. 1989)).
Again, relying solely on their complaint, the plaintiffs assert that O'Brien drove a "marked police van" at a "high speed" into a crowd of pedestrians and "struck Mr. Hawkins daughter, Sparkle[,] in the arm with the side view mirror." Pls.' Mot. at 2; see also Pls.' Opp'n at 2 ("O'Brien's police vehicle's mirror struck Sparkle").
O'Brien disputes these assertions with specific citations to the record. He testified that he did not hit Sparkle and that he did a preliminary investigation that found no evidence his vehicle made contact with her. See Def.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute ¶ 4; O'Brien Dep. at 106:7-107:22; O'Brien's Answers to Interrogs. at 3.
Moreover, even if O'Brien did hit Sparkle with his vehicle, there is no evidence he did so intentionally. Both O'Brien and Hawkins testified that O'Brien instructed the crowd of people surrounding his car to leave the area. See Hawkins Dep. at 93:1-7; O'Brien Dep. at 103:3-15. Hawkins also testified that O'Brien put his sirens on, then waited as people moved away from his vehicle before starting to drive. Hawkins Dep. 85:8-86:8. This evidence refutes the plaintiffs' unsupported claim that O'Brien intentionally hit Sparkle with his vehicle. Indeed, O'Brien testified that he had no idea that he might have hit someone until others told him he had hit a child. See O'Brien Dep. at 106:7-8, 113:11-114:5. In light of the undisputed facts, O'Brien is entitled to summary judgment on the battery claim.
Negligence requires "(1) the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a negligent breach of that duty by the defendant, and (3) an injury to the plaintiff (4) proximately caused by the defendant's breach." Powell v. District of Columbia, 602 A.2d 1123, 1133 (D.C. 1992) (concurring opinion). The plaintiffs allege that O'Brien operated his vehicle negligently when he drove into the crowd at a high rate of speed and hit Sparkle. Both of their negligence claims fail.
First, the record contains no evidence that either Sparkle or Hawkins were injured. The plaintiffs do not allege in the complaint, much less put forth any evidence, that Hawkins was injured, as it alleges that the vehicle hit only Sparkle. ¶ 14. The complaint does allege that Sparkle was injured, but aside from stating that Sparkle's mother took her to the Bowie Health Clinic the day after the incident, see Pls.' Statement of Facts Not in Dispute ¶¶ 30-31, the plaintiffs offer no evidence of her injury.
Second, based on the WMATA Compact and the D.C. Code, O'Brien cannot be liable for negligent operation of his vehicle while he responded to an emergency call. Section 76(b) of the WMATA Compact requires that WMATA officers be treated the same as police officers of the jurisdiction in which they are assigned, including on issues of immunity.
D.C. Code § 2-415 (2001).
O'Brien testified that when the incident occurred, he was on his way to an emergency call, with his lights and sirens activated. O'Brien Dep. at 89:15-91:13, 93:1-11. Because O'Brien was acting within the scope of his employment when he responded to the emergency call, he is immune from suit for any injury to Sparkle "resulting from the operation" of his vehicle. See Perkins v. United States, 183 F.Supp.2d 69, 71 (D.D.C. 2002) (holding that a plaintiff cannot sue an employee of the District of Columbia for damages arising out of an automobile accident when the employee was acting within the scope of his employment). Thus, O'Brien is entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims.
The plaintiffs appear to be alleging a § 1983 claim against O'Brien in his individual capacity based on his use of excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38-39. Section 1983 provides:
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs appear to base their § 1983 claim on their assertion that O'Brien pointed a gun at Hawkins and Sparkle. See Am. Compl. ¶ 39. Because the Court considers the fact that O'Brien never raised his gun at anyone undisputed, the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim fails on this ground alone. According to the admitted facts, O'Brien exited his vehicle and kept his hand "positioned on his weapon," but he never unholstered the weapon. See Def.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute ¶ 5; Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ¶ 24; O'Brien's Answers to Interrogs. at 3. He eventually removed his hand from the weapon when he determined that the crowd of people surrounding him were not trying to attack him. Id. This conduct does not demonstrate that O'Brien used any force, let alone that he violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by using excessive force. Thus, O'Brien is entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.
"To succeed on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show (1) extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress." Armstrong v. Thompson, 80 A.3d 177, 189 (D.C. 2013). "Liability will not be imposed for mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." Kowalevicz v. United States, 302 F.Supp.3d 68, 76 (D.D.C. 2018) (quotation and citation omitted)). Rather, "`[t]he conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Id. (quoting Horman v. Goyal, 711 A.2d 812, 818 (D.C. 1998)).
O'Brien's conduct was neither "extreme and outrageous" nor intentional. As stated in supra Part III.E., taking the facts that the plaintiffs fail to support as admitted, O'Brien did not take his handgun out of the holster and he never pointed it at anyone. Exiting the car with his hand placed on his handgun for safety hardly amounts to conduct that goes "beyond all possible bounds of decency." And there is no evidence that his conduct caused emotional distress to either Hawkins or Sparkle. See Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ¶¶ 31-34. The Court will therefore grant summary judgment to O'Brien on the IIED claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and O'Brien's motion for summary judgment is granted. A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion.
