Moss v. General Motors LLC

Filing 38

ORDER denying without prejudice 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Granting 19 Motion, granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion, and denying as moot 30 Motion. The 9 Final Scheduling Order is suspended and the 2/13/2017 trial is canceled. An Amended Final Scheduling Order will issue Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/21/2016. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION PLAINTIFF ANDREW MOSS v. No. 3:15-cv-200-DPM DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC ORDER 1. GM' s motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to renewal at trial. The issue is close. But things add up: Moss's testimony that he wasn't speeding; his prior experience with the steering locking up; GM's post-accident recall notice; and Moss's excited utterance about a steering problem right before the crash. All this - accepted as the truth, in combination, and with inferences taken in Moss's favor - is sufficient to support a conclusion that a steering defect caused this wreck. The jury must decide whether it believes all that disputed proof or GM' s experts' testimony: Moss was speeding; and the steering defect didn't cause any problem. In terms of the proof offered to avoid judgment as a matter of law, this case is more like Harrell Motors, Inc. v. Flanery, 272 Ark. 105, 612 S.W.2d 727 (1981) than Mixon v. Chrysler Corp., 281Ark.202, 663 S.W.2d 713 (1984). As in Schipp v. General Motors Corp., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (E.D. Ark. 2006), plaintiff has no expert but does have defect evidence a jury could believe. 2. GM' s motion to prevent Moss from offering belated expert testimony is granted. Moss didn't disclose any by the Court's deadline. Moss's like motion is granted in part but mostly denied. It's unclear whether Moss got the reports of GM's experts by email: The Court faces a he said/he said situation. It's clear, though, that Moss got the notice that GM had experts with opinions. Ng 33 at if 2. So GM's experts can testify. In the circumstances, the fair resolution is that Moss may depose GM's experts out of time to prepare for trial. But no rebuttal experts will be allowed. 3. The Court can't keep the February trial date. I must travel out of state that week to participate in the selection process for a United States Bankruptcy Judge. These interviews were just scheduled. An Amended Final Scheduling Order will issue. * * * Motion, Ng 22, denied without prejudice. Motion, Ng 19, granted. Motion, Ng 34, granted in part and denied in part. Motion, Ng 30, denied as moot. Final Scheduling Order, Ng 9, suspended and February 13th trial canceled. -2- So Ordered. v D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?