Young v. Broaddus et al
ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss Case (CASE DISMISSED). Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on October 2, 2013. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ROBERT S. YOUNG
Case No. 13-5060
MARK E. BROADDUS and
CHUHAK & TECSON, P.C.
On the 1st day of October, 2013, the above referenced matter
came before the Court for a telephone conference call concerning
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. #12) and Plaintiff’s Motion
for Enlargment of Time to Disclose Liability Expert (doc. #14).
Based on the pleadings and the arguments of counsel, the Court
found and ordered as follows:
The complaint herein, seeking damages for alleged legal
Washington County, Arkansas on March 4, 2013.
The matter was
removed to this Court on March 19, 2013 on the basis of diversity
The Court’s Final Scheduling Order was entered on April
25, 2013 scheduling this matter for a jury trial on March 24,
In accordance to the Final Scheduling Order, discovery must
be complete no later than November 25, 2013; and, initial expert
witness disclosures were to be made no later than 90 days before
the close of discovery – or August 27, 2013.
In the instant motion to dismiss, defendants state that
this matter should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the plaintiff has failed
to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) which requires a timely and proper
disclose of any expert witness.
disclosure of experts has passed, plaintiff cannot now retain an
expert to testify concerning the issues of liability and standard
of care presented in plaintiff’s complaint.
argue that expert testimony is necessary under Arkansas law to
present a prima facie case of negligence in connection with legal
Defendants point to the history of this matter:
plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit based upon the same facts and
circumstances against the same two named defendants on September
liability expert prior to the expiration of the January 13, 2012
deadline; but, the plaintiff failed to make a timely disclosure.
The matter was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 7,
As set forth above, the instant matter was re-filed nearly
one year later, on March 4, 2013.
Following the filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss,
the plaintiff filed a motion to enlarge the his time to disclose a
enlargement of time” for expert disclosure and notes that the
defendants did not take the plaintiff’s deposition until August
29, 2013; and, the plaintiff’s deposition was not received until
late in the afternoon on September 13, 2013.
that “an expert opinion regarding all elements of the plaintiff’s
claims (duty, breach, causation, damages) would not have been
feasible in the absence of the plaintiff’s sworn testimony given
the complex issues involved.
Now that his testimony is available,
the appropriate expert report(s) can be provided in short order.”
Plaintiff has also responded to the motion to dismiss.
In the response, plaintiff argues that the motion is premature
procedurally; and, dismissal would be unjust and unduly harsh due
to the lack of prejudice.
As set forth above, the defendants argue that, without
a belated enlargement of time within which the plaintiff can name
the Court can exclude any expert testimony on the
plaintiff’s behalf and dismiss plaintiff’s claim under Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because expert testimony
is necessary to prevail on a claim of malpractice.
Everett, 95 S.W.3d 740 (2003).
The defendants have not responded to plaintiff’s motion for an enlargement of time. However, the plaintiff’s
motion notes that the defendants object to any such enlargement of time.
The Court agrees.
While the plaintiff argues that an expert
opinion would not have been feasible in the absence of plaintiff’s
dismissal of this matter for identical reasons, the Court finds
that a belated extension of time within which to name an expert
should not be given, and finds that this case should, therefore,
The Court, therefore, finds and orders that the defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (doc. #12) should be and hereby is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 2013.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?