Saenzpardo v. United Framing Construction Company et al

Filing 151

Order on jury trial held 11/29 & 30/2011. Post trial motions due by 12/16/2011. Responses due by 12/23/2011. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 12/2/2011. (Attachment: # 1 Verdict Form) (mab) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2011: # 2 Redacted Verdict Form) (mab).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVE SAENZPARDO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MATTHEW DAVID NERO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 10-0049-CG-M

ORDER
The above-styled action came on for trial by jury on November 29 and 30,
2011, before United States District Judge Callie V. S. Granade. The jury was
selected and sworn by Judge Granade on November 29, 2011.
After jury selection on November 29, 2011, the court held an in-camera
hearing with counsel, at which the court made the following rulings for the reasons
as set forth on the record:
1) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 1 regarding Baptist Hospital urine
toxicology screen (Doc. 123) was DENIED.
2) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2 regarding Baptist Hospital
neuropsychology records (Doc. 124) was deemed to be MOOT.
3) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3 regarding evidence of past emotional or
behavioral conditions (Doc. 125) was deemed to be MOOT.
4) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 4 regarding inquiry into drug and/or
alcohol use (Doc. 126) was DENIED.

5) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 5 regarding evidence of Saenzpardo’s place
of residence (Doc. 127) was deemed to be MOOT.
6) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 6 regarding evidence of defendant’s
military service (Doc. 128) was deemed to be MOOT.
7) Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 7 regarding certain deposition excerpts
designated for trial (Doc. 129) was deemed to be MOOT.
8) Defendant’s motion in limine No. 1 regarding blood alcohol level (Doc. 120)
was DENIED.
9) Defendant’s motion in limine No. 2 regarding leaving the scene of the
accident, (Doc. 121) was DENIED.
10) Defendant’s motion in limine No. 3 regarding driving record (Doc. 122)
was DENIED.
11) Defendant’s motion in limine No. 4 regarding certain portions of proposed
deposition testimony (Doc. 130) was deemed to be MOOT.
The jury was then duly sworn, and trial commenced. Plaintiff presented his
case-in-chief and rested. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant’s motion
for judgment as a matter of law (Doc. 145) was GRANTED as to the plaintiff’s
claim for recklessness, and DENIED as to plaintiff’s claim for negligence and for
wantonness for the reasons as set forth on the record.
On November 30, 2011, the defendant rested without presenting evidence.
At the close of all of the evidence defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of
law (Doc. 146) was GRANTED as to plaintiff’s claim for wantonness on stipulation
of the parties, and DENIED as to plaintiff’s claim for negligence for the reasons as

set forth on the record. The court then held a charge conference with counsel, the
respective parties presented their closing arguments to the jury, the court charged
the jury on the applicable law, and the jury commenced their deliberations.
Now, on the 30th day of November 2011, comes the jury who having heard the
evidence, the arguments of counsel, the charge of the court and having considered
the same upon their oaths, return their verdict (a copy of which is attached hereto)
into open court with counsel present.
Post trial motions are to be filed no later than December 16, 2011. Any
response to said motions are to be filed no later than December 23, 2011.
By separate document, the court will enter judgment in accordance the
verdict of the jury.
DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2011.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE