Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp

Filing 1444

ORDER denying 1436 MOTION to Strike Defendants' Claims for Expenses of Litigation Under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. The Court sua sponte grants summary judgment against Defendants on their counterclaims for expenses of litigation. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/19/2021. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

'
:i_r 0

U.S. Ci3TR!-T COURT
A!

WHITESELL CORPORATION,

*

'

P 2^ 38

-k
-h

Plaintiff,

^

so. Diol. Ur UA.

^

V,

CV 103-050

*

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,

*

HUSQVARNA, A.B., and HUSQVARNA
OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC.,

*
*
*

Defendants.

ORDER

On December II, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion
for summary judgment on Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation's claim
for expenses of litigation under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 based upon the
fact that Whitesell had not designated an expert witness on the
issue

as

reguired.

(Doc.

No.

1433.)

Whitesell filed a motion to strike

On

December

18,

2020,

Defendants' counterclaims for

expenses of litigation under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 (Count VI of their
respective

Answers)

appropriate experts.

based

upon

their

failure

to

designate

In response. Defendants state that they "do

not oppose an Order in the form of summary judgment disposing of
the § 13-6-11 counterclaims for the reasons stated in the Court's

Order of December 11, 2020 because it is Defendants' view

there is no good faith basis for opposing such an Order."
No. 1440, at 2.)

that

(Doc.

Rather than get bogged down, as the parties have, in the

technicalities of the appropriate procedural mechanism by which
the Court may dispose of the counterclaims, the Court notes that

it may grant summary judgment on its own after identifying for the
parties material facts not in dispute.
56(f)(3).

Having

fully

litigated

the

See Fed. R. Civ. P.
issue

and

with

their

concession, the Court concludes that Defendants are fully apprised
of the circumstances upon which their counterclaims for expenses

of

litigation

cannot

stand

in

the

case.

The

Court

further

concludes that summary judgment should be granted in favor of
Plaintiff Whitesell on said counterclaims.

Upon the foregoing. Plaintiff Whitesell's motion to strike
Defendants' claims for expenses of litigation under O.C.G.A. § 136-11 (doc. no. 1436) is DENIED.

summary judgment against

The Court, sua sponte, grants

Defendants on their

counterclaims for

expenses of litigation because without expert testimony on the
issue, they would not be able to establish their claims as a matter
of law.

OHDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

ay of January,

2021.

J.
(RANp^ HALL/CHIEF JUDGE
uniTE^states district court
liERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA