Gurpreet Singh v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 30 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH, Individually, and as No. 18-16683
Successor in Interest on behalf of heirs and
Estate of Amarjit Singh, Deceased; D.C. No. 4:17-cv-02425-JSW
BALWINDER KAUR; SUMANDEEP
KAUR; RAMANDEEP KAUR;
BHUPUINDER KAUR, MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, DBA Amtrak, a District
of Columbia corporation; UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a
Utah corporation; KEVIN GNIADEK,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2020
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,**
District Judge.
Gurpreet Singh, individually, and as successor in interest on behalf of the
heirs and estate of Amarjit Singh, along with Balwinder Kaur, Sumandeep Kaur,
Ramandeep Kaur, and Bhupuinder Kaur (together, Appellants) appeal the district
court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellees.1 We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo. See Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S.
Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 988 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their
wrongful death claim. Appellants proposed two theories of liability: (1) failure to
sound the train horn in accordance with federal guidelines (horn theory); and (2)
failure to sufficiently warn about and fence the railroad crossing (warning theory).
A wrongful death claim encompasses all the elements of a negligence claim. See
Novak v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., 22 Cal. App. 5th 189, 195 (2018). Consequently,
Appellants would be required to establish (1) breach of an existing duty (2) that
proximately caused (3) an injury. See id.Under the horn theory of negligence, Appellants failed to raise a genuine
**
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
1
Appellees are National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific), and Kevin Gniadek (Gniadek).
2
issue of material fact regarding compliance with federal guidelines. Gniadek
testified that the horn was sounded in accordance with the guidelines and the event
data recorder corroborated that testimony. The declaration of one eyewitness who
could not recall whether he heard more than one horn blast did not raise a genuine
issue of material fact. See Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771
F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A fact is material only if it might affect the
outcome of the case, and a dispute is genuine only if a reasonable trier of fact could
resolve the issue in the non-movant’s favor. . . .”) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). In sum, Appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
regarding breach of the duty to comply with the regulation addressing sounding the
horn.
Appellants similarly failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding
their warning theory. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) was
authorized to adopt regulatory policies on railroad crossings. See Cal. Pub. Util.
Code § 1202(a). The CPUC exercised that authority by issuing General Orders
75D and 88A, prescribing required warning signals for railroad crossings. There
was no contention that Appellees failed to comply with the General Orders, or that
there had been any prior problems at that particular crossing.
Appellants rely upon Hogue v. S. Pac. Co., 460 P.2d 965 (Cal. 1969), to
3
support their argument that Appellees breached a duty to warn about or fence the
crossing. However, this reliance is misplaced because in Hogue, the record
reflected that the railroad had failed to comply with CPUC General Order 75B.
See id. at 968. No such dereliction exists in this case, and Appellants have thus
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the warning theory underlying
their assertion that Appellees breached a duty owed to them.2
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by resolving the
summary judgment motion without receiving testimony or considering transcribed
witness statements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may
provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs . . .”).
AFFIRMED.
2
In view of our conclusion that Appellants failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact regarding breach, we need not and do not address the
proximate cause and injury elements of Appellants’ wrongful death claim. See
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 407 n.35 (9th Cir. 2012).
4