Jesness v. Bridges

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 CARTER JESNESS, CASE NO. C18-1225 RSM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF JESNESS’ MOTION FOR 11 v. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12 GREGORY LYLE BRIDGES, 13 Defendant. 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carter Jesness’ Motion for Partial 16 Summary Judgment against Defendant Gregory Lyle Bridges on claim of violation of 18 U.S.C. 17 2255(a). Dkt. #29. Defendant provided no response. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and 18 all documents submitted in support thereof, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial 19 Summary Judgment. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Jesness at all material times was a minor and resided in Boulder, Colorado. Dkt. 22 #1 at 1. Defendant Bridges at all material times resided in Seattle, Washington. Id. According 23 to Jesness’ Complaint, on or about April 26, 2013, Bridges traveled from Seattle to Colorado for 24 1 the purposes of engaging in, and did engage in, illicit sexual conduct with Jesness. Id. 2. Bridges’ Answer admits to subsequently being charged with two counts of Travel with Intent to Engage in 2 a Sexual Act with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Dkt. #17 at 2. Bridges admitted 3 to entering pleas of guilty to those charges. Id. 4 Jesness alleges Bridges is liable for the damages caused by the commission of the crimes 5 against him. Dkt. #1 at 3. Jesness seeks damages for pain and suffering, lost earnings, lost earning 6 capacity, reasonable medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, costs of litigation, and 7 reasonable attorney fees. Id. at 3-4. 8 DISCUSSION 9 A. Legal Standard 10 Summary judgement is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine 11 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 12 R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed. 13 2d 202 (1986). Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit under 14 governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In ruling on summary judgment, a court does not 15 weigh evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but “only determine[s] whether there is a 16 genuine issue for trial.” Crane v. Conoco, Inc., 41 F.3d 547, 549 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Federal 17 Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O’Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1992)). 18 On a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence and draws inferences 19 in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Sullivan v. U.S. 20 Dep’t of the Navy, 365 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court must draw all reasonable 21 inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See O’Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d at 747, rev’d 22 on other grounds, 512 U.S. 79, 114 S. Ct. 2048, 129 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1994). However, the 23 nonmoving party must make a “sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect 24 1 to which she has the burden of proof” to survive summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). 2 B. Analysis 3 Jesness argues Bridges’ convictions conclusively establish liability and that Bridges has 4 essentially admitted to the conduct in his Answer. Dkt. #29 at 2. The Court agrees. Any person, 5 while a minor, being a victim of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 shall recover actual damages 6 such person sustains. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Having pled guilty and been sentenced for violations 7 of 18 U.S.C. § 2423, Bridges is unable to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to his liability 8 to Jesness. Dkt. #29 at 3. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 11 finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Jesness’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #29) is 12 GRANTED. 13 DATED this 28 day of October 2019. 14 15 A 16 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24