Chaotic Labz Inc v. SDC Nutrition Inc

Filing 67

ORDER denying 59 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court stands by its punitive-damages ruling on the conversion claim about the approximately $18,000 deposit. The Court likewise declines to allow Palumbo's belated designation as an expert. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/28/2020. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
CHAOTIC LABZ, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:18-cv-75-DPM

SDC NUTRITION, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Chaotic Labz, Hooten, and his involved business entities
respectfully ask the Court to reconsider two parts of the recent Orders.
The Court has done so.
The Court stands by its punitive-damages ruling on the
conversion claim about the approximately $18,000 deposit. Taken in
the light most favorable to the Chaotic plaintiffs, the record shows
miscommunication, confusion, and then a stand-still based counsel's
advice. Doc. 31-6 at 30-33; Doc. 34 at 9. Hooten could only speculate
about SDC' s intentions. Doc. 34 at 10. All this does not add up to what
Arkansas law requires for punitive damages for a conversion.
ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-55-206;

City National Bank of Fort Smith v.

Goodwin, 301 Ark 182, 188-189, 783 S.W.2d 335,338 (1990).

The Court likewise declines to allow Palumbo's belated
designation as an expert. The Chaotic plaintiffs' deadlines for expert
disclosures were in February and April 2019. Palumbo was deposedas a lay witness. The parties and the Court have done much work on

discovery and motions. While the trial has been put off to December
2020, no sufficient justification has been offered for Palumbo's belated
designation and it would prejudice SDC. Vanderberg v. Petco Animal
Supplies Stores, Inc., 906 F.3d 698, 703 (8th Cir. 2018). As the Chaotic

plaintiffs point out, SDC has a sealing expert, which reduces the
potential prejudice. But, as SDC rejoins, Palumbo' s designation now
would set in train another deposition of him, another round of motions,
and the prospect of unfair gap-filling testimony. The case stands ready
for trial. In fairness and for efficiency, we should go forward on the
existing record.
Motion to reconsider, Doc. 59, denied.
So Ordered.
I

D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-