Redos v. Union Pacific Railroad

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/29/10 ORDERING that given the excess page limit requested by Defendant, however, Plaintiff's Opposition, if any, shall also be subject to the same 40 page limitation. Should Defendant elect to file a reply, it may be no more than 20 pages in length. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
Redos v. Union Pacific Railroad Doc. 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 R a n d o lp h C r e gg e r & C h a lf a n t John S. Gilmore, Esq. (SBN: 32491) gilmore@randolphlaw.net Thomas a. Cregger, Esq. (SBN: 124402) tac@randolphlaw.net Stephanie L. Quinn, Esq. (SBN: 216655) slq@randolphlaw.net RANDOLPH CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP 1030 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-4443 Facsimile: (916) 443-2124 Attorneys for Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN F. REDOS, JR., Plaintiff, vs. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant. / No. 2:08-CV-01036-MCE-KJM DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION EXTENSION FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER THEREON Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ("Union Pacific") hereby requests that the Court allow Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment in this matter that exceeds the page limitation of twenty (20) pages, which is set forth in the Court's Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, dated July 6, 2009. There is good cause to allow Defendant to file a supporting memorandum in excess of the page limitation, for the following reasons: This case arises out of the derailment of a rail grinding consist (called the "RMS-4") owned and operated by Harsco Track Technologies ("Harsco") on November 9, 2006. Harsco performed rail grinding services pursuant to a contract with Defendant Union Pacific. The RMS-4 was 1 DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ORDER THEREON 25 26 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 R a n d o lp h C r e gg e r & C h a lf a n t traveling from Sparks, Nevada to Bakersfield, California, when it derailed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, near Alta, California. Two Harsco employees were killed. Plaintiff JOHN REDOS, a Harsco employee, was the supervisor of the RMS-4 and was operating the equipment at the time it derailed. He has brought this lawsuit against Union Pacific alleging that he suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident. He has asserted the following claims in his Second Amended Complaint: (1) Negligence/Gross Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; (3) Violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. ("LIA"); (4) Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq. ("FELA"); and (5) Violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. 20301 et seq. ("FSAA"). This case involves complicated legal and factual issues that Defendant intends to present to the Court by way of a summary judgment/adjudication motion. Those issues include, whether Defendant can be liable under the FELA, LIA and FSAA. More specifically, whether Plaintiff qualifies as a "borrowed servant" under the FELA to bring him within the protection of the federal statutes, whether Defendant can be directly liable to a non-employee under the LIA and FSAA, and whether those statutes apply to the rail grinding equipment at issue here. Other important legal issues need to be resolved by the Court on a dispositive motion, including Defendant's duties and liability to Plaintiff for alleged negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se. This case involves detailed evidence regarding brake systems, equipment maintenance and inspections, train handling, and the contractual relationship between Union Pacific and Plaintiff's employer, Harsco, among other things. Substantial legal and factual analysis is needed in order to adequately address these issues. Given the numerous issues presented by Plaintiff's complaint and the legal and factual matters at issue in this case, Defendant cannot adequately address the issues to be presented to the Court by way of a summary judgment motion in a memorandum which is limited to twenty (20) pages. Defendant believes that it can adequately address the issues in a memorandum not exceeding forty (40) pages and hereby requests that the Court grant a page limitation increase, 2 DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ORDER THEREON 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 R a n d o lp h C r e gg e r & C h a lf a n t given the circumstances of this case. Dated: July 28, 2010 RANDOLPH CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP /s/ John S. Gilmore JOHN S. GILMORE Attorneys for Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. Given the excess page limit requested by Defendant, however, Plaintiff's Opposition, if any, shall also be subject to the same 40 page limitation. Should Defendant elect to file a reply, it may be no more than 20 pages in length. Dated: July 29, 2010 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 3 DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ORDER THEREON

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?