Chen v. Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [8] AT SEATTLE [9] 10 SUSAN CHEN, et al., CASE NO. C16-1877JLR 11 Plaintiffs, MINUTE ORDER v. [12] WASHINGTON STATE [13] DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, et al., [14] 15 Defendants. 16 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable 17 James L. Robart: 18 Before the court is Defendant Washington State Department of Children, Youth, 19 and Families’ (“DCYF”)1 motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal [21] 1 In February 2025, the parties agreed that the proper name for defendant Washington State Department of Social and Health Services is now Washington State Department of [22] Children, Youth, and Families. (See 2/3/25 Min. Order (Dkt. # 420).) 1 Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). (Mot. (Dkt. # 482); Reply (Dkt. # 492).) Plaintiffs Susan 2 Chen and J.L. oppose DCYF’s motion. (Chen Resp. (Dkt. # 488); J.L. Resp. (Dkt. 3 # 487).) After a five-day trial, the jury found that Plaintiffs proved their negligent 4 investigation and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) claims against 5 DCYF, but not against Defendants Kimberly Danner or Jill Kegel. (Jury Verdict (Dkt. 6 ## 467 (sealed), 466 (redacted)) at 1-4.) The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs provided a 7 legally sufficient evidentiary basis from which the jury could have resolved Plaintiffs’ 8 negligent investigation and NIED claims in Plaintiffs’ favor and against DCYF. (See 9 generally Mot.; Chen Resp.; J.L. Resp.) 10 As is relevant here, DCYF argues that Plaintiffs sued DCYF for negligent 11 investigation and NIED only under a vicarious liability theory and not on a theory of 12 direct liability. (See Mot. at 4.) DCYF further asserts that, because the jury found that 13 Ms. Danner and Ms. Kegel were not liable for negligent investigation or NIED, DCYF 14 also cannot be vicariously liable under those claims. (Id.) In DCYF’s view, there is also 15 no evidence of negligent investigation or NIED by any employee of DCYF who was not 16 named as a defendant in this lawsuit. (Id.) 17 In their responses, Plaintiffs assert that they sued DCYF under both direct and 18 vicarious liability theories. (See J.L. Resp. at 10; see Chen Resp. at 15.) The court 19 understands Plaintiffs to collectively argue that there is sufficient evidence to find DCYF 20 liable for negligent investigation and NIED because, in their view: (1) the jury was 21 permitted to consider the conduct of Ms. Danner, Ms. Kegel, and DCYF employees 22 Kristy Archie, Stephanie Allison-Noone, and Natalie Gaydarzhi in assessing DCYF’s 1 liability under both claims (J.L. Resp. at 6-10; see Chen Resp. at 9, 10); and (2) DCYF 2 may be directly liable under both claims because it assigned Plaintiffs’ dependency case 3 to a “trainee” (i.e., Ms. Kegel), and failed to create policies and procedures (i) requiring 4 supervisors to independently verify facts found by caseworkers and (ii) “allow[ing] 5 investigative responsibilities to slip through the cracks[.]” (J.L. Resp. at 10; id. at 10-11 6 (stating that DCYF employees were “rubber stamping the investigation” without 7 independently verifying facts); Chen Resp. at 3.) 8 In light of the above disputes, the court ORDERS the parties to file, by July 3, 9 2025 at 12:00 p.m. (P.T.), supplemental briefs of no more than 4,000 words in length, 10 addressing the following issues, with citations to case law or other legal authority: 11 (1) In assessing whether the jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find 12 DCYF vicariously liable for negligent investigation or NIED, may the court properly 13 consider the conduct of Ms. Danner and Ms. Kegel, even though the jury found Ms. 14 Danner and Ms. Kegel not liable under either claim?2 15 (a) If the court cannot consider the conduct of Ms. Danner or Ms. Kegel in its 16 analysis, what legal authority supports holding DCYF liable for negligent 17 investigation and NIED in connection with the conduct of Kristy Archie, [20] 2 The court observes that in Thompson v. Grays Harbor Community Hospital, the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant hospital was vicariously liable for [21] the actions of unnamed individual defendants, even though the named individual defendants were either dismissed from the case or found not liable in the jury’s verdict. 675 P.2d 239 , [22] 305-07 (1983). 1 Stephanie Allison-Noone, and Natalie Gaydarzhi—all of whom supervised Ms. 2 Danner and Ms. Kegel? 3 (2) As a matter of law, is DCYF’s decision to assign J.L.’s dependency case to a 4 trainee, or its alleged failure to create adequate policies and procedures, the type of harm 5 that may support a negligent investigation or NIED claim under Washington law? [6] 7 Filed and entered this 24th day of June, 2025. [8] RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court [9] s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah [10] Deputy Clerk