James v. Baldwin Bone & Joint, P.C. et al

Filing 107

Order on Jury Trial held on April 18, 19 and 20, 2011. The jury found in favor of the defendants, Dr. Rhett Hubley and Baldwin Bone and Joint and against plaintiff, Austin James. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 4/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Verdict) (mca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUSTIN E. JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BALDWIN BONE & JOINT, P.C.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00254-KD-B

ORDER
This action came before the Court for jury selection on April 5, 2011, and trial by jury on
April 18, 19, and 20, 2011, with United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose presiding.
The jury was duly sworn and trial commenced on April 18, 2011.1 Plaintiff Austin E.
James presented his case-in-chief and rested on April 19, 2011. Defendants Baldwin Bone &
Joint, P.C. and Rhett Hubley, M.D., moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of
Plaintiff=s case and the motion (doc. 105) was denied. Defendants orally moved to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claim of wantonness and the motion was denied. Plaintiff orally moved to dismiss his
claim of wantonness and the motion was granted.
Defendants then presented their case-in-chief and rested on April 19, 2011. Defendants
renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all evidence and the motion
(doc. 106) was denied. The Court held a final charge conference with counsel and recessed for
1

In open court but outside the presence of the jury, the Court entered the following
rulings upon motions carried to trial: Defendants’ motion to strike certain damages (doc. 68),
Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 (doc. 91), and Defendants’ motion in limine no. 5 (doc. 92),
were rendered moot. Defendants’ amended motion in limine no. 3 (doc. 104) was granted in
that this motion had been previously granted (see docs. 90, 101).

1

the afternoon of April 19, 2011.
On the morning of April 20, 2011, Court reconvened and the parties gave their closing
arguments to the jury. The Court charged the jury on the applicable law and the jury commenced
their deliberations. In open court, after the jury began their deliberation, Defendants made an
oral motion for mistrial to which Plaintiff made his response. The Court, by oral order, denied
the motion.
On April 20, 2011, the jury having heard the evidence, the arguments of counsel, the
charge of the Court and having considered the same upon their oaths, the jury deliberated and
returned the following verdict (a copy of which is attached hereto):
We, the jury, find in favor of the defendants, Dr. Rhett Hubley and
Baldwin Bone & Joint, and against the plaintiff, Austin James.
By separate document, the Court will enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of
the jury.
DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of April, 2011.

s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2