Eastridge Christian Assembly v. Harvestime Inc, No. 2:2010cv01886 - Document 165 (W.D. Wash. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER granting 130 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; striking as moot 145 Motion to Exclude and terminates this case by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eastridge Christian Assembly v. Harvestime Inc Doc. 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 EASTRIDGE CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY, a Washington not for profit corporation, 11 Plaintiff, 12 CASE NO. C10-1886MJP ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 13 14 15 16 BRADLEY D. and JANE DOE OASTER and the marital community thereof; HARVESTIME, Inc., a foreign corporation; NEUJAHR & GORMAN, Inc., a foreign corporation; and PATRICK MORGAN ARCHITECT, Inc., a foreign corporation, 17 Defendants. 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by 20 21 Defendant Neujahr & Gorman, Inc. (“Neujahr”). (Dkt. No. 130.) Having reviewed the motion, Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 147), Defendant’s reply (Dkt. No. 157), and all related filings 22 (Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, and 158), the Court GRANTS the motion for 23 24 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 summary judgment. This ruling moots the other pending motion, Neujahr’s motion to exclude 2 expert witnesses (Dkt. No. 145), and terminates this case. 3 4 Background This case arises out of the construction of a church in Issaquah, Washington. (Dkt. No. 5 130 at 1.) Plaintiff Eastridge Christian Assembly (“Eastridge”) planned to construct a house of 6 worship for its 2,000 member congregation on twenty acres of land it had acquired in 2002. (Dkt. 7 No. 149 at 2.) Eastridge hired a Colorado church development company called Harvestime, Inc., 8 which subcontracted with various design companies, including Defendant Neujahr, a structural 9 engineering firm. (Id. at 2-3.) 10 The construction process did not go smoothly. In November 2007, Eastridge’s contractor 11 noted that Neujahr had failed to plan for the structural point loads to support equipment that 12 would hang from the sanctuary’s ceiling. (Id. at 3.) In January 2008, the King County Building 13 Department raised additional concerns about the church’s structural design, delaying the project. 14 (Id.) The problems culminated in August 2008, when Eastridge’s general contractor, BPCI, 15 terminated its contract with Eastridge and recorded a claim of lien against the project, citing the 16 delays. (Id. at 4.) Neujahr continued working on the project until it was completed in 2010. (Dkt. 17 No. 147 at 5.) 18 Eastridge sued Harvestime on November 18, 2010, alleging causes of action for breach of 19 contract, negligence, and misrepresentation. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5.) Eastridge amended its complaint 20 when it realized Harvestime was not a corporation in good standing with the state of Colorado, 21 and served Harvestime’s owner, Bradley Oaster, on February 15, 2011. (Dkt. No. 147 at 5.) On 22 March 28, 2011, the Court stayed the litigation pending mediation, pursuant to the contract 23 between Eastridge and Harvestime. (Dkt. No. 21.) On January 3, 2012, after the mediation had 24 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 2 1 failed, the Court lifted the stay. (Dkt. No. 15.) On January 25, 2012, Eastridge moved to amend 2 its complaint by adding the project’s architect, Patrick Morgan Architect, Inc., and the structural 3 engineer, Neujahr and Gorman, Inc. (Dkt. No. 28.) The Court granted the motion on February 4 13, and Eastridge filed its amended complaint on February 21, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 38.) In April 5 2013, all defendants settled, except Neujahr. (Dkt. Nos. 142, 143, 144.) 6 Plaintiff acknowledges that it omitted Defendant Neujahr from its original suit because, 7 until October 2011, it believed that existing Washington law did not allow a cause of action for 8 negligence against a structural engineer. (Dkt. No. 147 at 5.) Plaintiff believes that the law 9 changed in November 2010, when the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in 10 Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc. 170 Wn.2d 442 (2010); (Dkt. No. 147 at 11 8). Neujahr disagrees. (Dkt. No. 157 at 12.) 12 Defendant Neujahr asks the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor for two 13 reasons. First, Neujahr asserts that Eastridge failed to file its negligence claim within three years 14 of its accrual, so the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 130 at 14.) Second, 15 Neujahr asserts that, under Washington law, engineers on construction projects do not owe tort 16 duties to avoid causing delays or increased construction costs to parties with whom they are not 17 in contractual privity. (Id. at 20.) In opposition, Plaintiff offers various reasons why the statute 18 of limitations should be tolled, and argues that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in 19 Affiliated changed the state’s law on the duties of care owed by engineers in construction 20 projects. (Dkt. No. 147 at 8, 14); 170 Wn.2d 442. 21 22 23 Discussion A. Legal Standard Federal Rule 56(a) provides that the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant 24 shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 3 1 judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 2 242, 247 (1986). In determining whether a factual dispute requiring trial exists, the court must 3 view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. at 255. All material facts 4 alleged by the non-moving party are assumed to be true, and all inferences must be drawn in that 5 party’s favor. Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2008). 6 7 B. Statute of Limitations Washington’s three-year statute of limitations bars this action, and Plaintiff offers no 8 valid reason why it should be tolled or why the amended complaint adding Neujahr relates back 9 to an earlier pleading. A federal court sitting in diversity applies the applicable statute of 10 limitations of the jurisdiction in which the court sits. Menzez v. Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy 11 Indus. Co., 52 F.3d 799, 800 (9th Cir. 1995). This matter is governed by the three-year statute of 12 limitations in RCW 4.16.080(2) (“[t]he following actions shall be commenced within three years: 13 . . . an action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the 14 specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another hot hereinafter 15 enumerated”). 16 There is no dispute that more than three years have passed since Plaintiff’s cause of 17 action against Neujahr accrued. A cause of action accrues at the time the plaintiff knew or should 18 have known all of the essential elements of the cause of action. Del Guzzi Constr. Co. v. Global 19 Northwest, 105 Wn.2d 878, 884 (1986). Defendant offers two potential dates for when Plaintiff’s 20 cause of action accrued here. At the earliest, Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in November 21 2007, when Plaintiff learned that Neujahr failed to include point loads for equipment to hang 22 from the sanctuary ceiling. (Dkt. No. 147 at 14.) At the latest, it accrued in December 2008, 23 when Plaintiff had lost its general contractor on the project and hired a new one, paid additional 24 interest as a result of the delay, and was involved in discussions about potential claims against ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 4 1 Neujahr. (Dkt. No. 130 at 18.) Even if the Court were to accept this later date, Plaintiff had until 2 December 2011 to file its negligence claim against Neujahr. RCW 4.16.080(2). But Plaintiff 3 first asserted its negligence claim against Neujahr when it filed its second amended complaint on 4 February 21, 2012. (Dkt. No. 38.) 5 Plaintiff’s argument for why the statute of limitations should be tolled fails. Plaintiff 6 asserts that the Court should apply the “continuing relationship” doctrine to toll the statute of 7 limitations until the professional relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant ended. (Dkt. No. 8 147 at 15.) Rooted in legal and medical malpractice law, Washington courts recognize a 9 “continuing relationship” exception to permit these professionals to “remedy their errors, 10 establish that there was no error, or attempt to mitigate the damage caused by their errors, while 11 still allowing the aggrieved client the right to later bring a malpractice action.” Cawdrey v. 12 Hanson Baker, 129 Wn. App. 810, 819 (2005). Washington courts have applied the exception to 13 stockbrokers and accountants, but never to structural engineers. See, e.g., Hermann v. Merrill 14 Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 17 Wn. App. 626, 629-30 (1977). This doctrine is inapplicable 15 here, because the relationship between a client and a structural engineer is not traditionally an 16 intimate one, like the attorney-client and doctor-patient relationships, and also because Neujahr 17 never had a contract with Eastridge. The fact that Washington courts have not recognized such 18 an exception is another reason not to create one now. See Orkin v. Taylor, 487 F.3d 734, 741 19 (9th Cir. 2007) (the task of a federal court in a diversity action is to approximate state law as 20 closely as possible). 21 Plaintiff also fails to show that the statute of limitations should not be applied because its 22 second amended complaint relates back to the date it filed its original complaint. Federal Rule of 23 Civil Procedure 15(c) permits an amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original 24 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 5 1 pleading when, among other requirements, the newly named party “knew or should have known 2 that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper 3 party’s identity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(ii). Here, Plaintiff argues that, while it did not make a 4 mistake about the Neujahr’s identity, the Court should read the federal rules flexibly and allow 5 the amendment because Neujahr would not be prejudiced. (Dkt. No. 147 at 21.) But Federal Rule 6 15(c) is clear: relation back is permitted in cases of mistaken identity, not changes in law. Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(ii). 8 Plaintiff also argues the Court should apply the Washington state law on relation back if 9 it is more forgiving than the federal rule on relation back. (Dkt. No. 147 at 19, citing the notes to 10 the 1991 amendment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).) However, Washington rule CR 15(c) contains a 11 requirement that the party to be added “knew or should have known that, but for a mistake 12 concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.” Id. 13 Because the Washington rule is not more forgiving than the federal rule, applying the state rule 14 will not save Plaintiff’s claim. 15 Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the Court should exercise its inherent powers in equity to toll 16 the statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 147 at 22.) Plaintiff asserts that tolling is appropriate here 17 because Defendant had notice of the action, Defendant would suffer no prejudice, and Plaintiff 18 did not sleep on its rights. (Id. at 23, citing Burton v. Benson, CV-06-0273-JLQ (E.D. Wash. 19 June 13, 2008.) But that district court case is not binding on this Court, and it involved a pro se 20 litigant’s civil rights complaint, which the court construed liberally. Id. Plaintiff in this matter is 21 represented by counsel, and there is no reason for the Court to exercise its equitable power to toll 22 the statute of limitations. Because the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s negligence claim here, 23 24 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 6 1 the Court need not address the issue of whether a structural engineer owes a duty of care to a 2 project owner under these circumstances. 3 4 Conclusion Because Plaintiff fails to show why the statute of limitations should be tolled or why the 5 amendment adding Defendant Neujahr relates back to the original complaint, the Court 6 GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 7 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 8 Dated this 30th day of July, 2013. 9 A 10 11 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEUJAHR & GORMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
