Dezauche v. Aircraft Manufacturing & Design, LLC et al

Filing 109

ORDER that the trial assignment earlier scheduled for February 17, 2015, re 103 Notice of Jury Selection and Jury Trial is hereby vacated. The case will be reassigned for trial when Plaintiff completes his preparation, and the Court is assured th at the matter is ready to proceed to meaningful consideration by a jury summoned for that purpose. Until the case is reopened upon motion by Plaintiff, the captioned matter is closed for all purposes of statistical reporting. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 02/06/2015. (jah)

Download PDF
j,'lLflD , ;: rt,ii , l.llF i';I l;ilt]R T[t Ul'./. DISTRICT COURT FoR fgg; A:UGU3'Lq IN THE TTNITED STATES DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SOUTTIERN DI'BLIN DIVISION ?{]15 -[, P|,t Ff,B t?: DANIEL DEZAUCHE, fl t /1- uttlhtrrr ! e f ! t * V. cv 311-071 * * * * * * * W GEORGE . BRYCE, JR.; L SOUTHBAST IGHT SPORT AVTATION, LLC; FLY LTGHT SPORT, LLC; EASTMAN AVTATION, INC.; and JOHN DoES (1-100) individually and as members of Aircraft Manufacturing & Design/ LLC, Defendants. ORDER 13, On July warranty alleging nrrrnhrce n!f v IJU!Urrqas scheduled herein. e rn q r C L O S E Df o r -'i rn1 d.J-IIJf ULIIJ L 7, administrative ino docket o! f v the triaI which entries consideration. 2Q, 2015, cs leat t e u v all T r are Most significant relating to For the arising lL-+rria r e ' l from i rJ reasons mattef preparation for trial. n qelecf to the annencled is the minute entry a recorded is may reopen the Plaintiff important rr forth set of the events relevant harre the - q n!rEeaq e rn tr 'Jl y Er L VACAfED and the purposes. completes his Rather than chroni-cle qeff 2015. a rn u l q l r suit diversity this cl-aims qe . T t r r 1 7 J E r lv v L +rv-rj r- i o n e =-o aIIE. a.q.qionmentis trial case when Plaintiff JLLqrrrv fil-ed contract and February for fhe Plaintiff 2011, telephone to the ' of present of January conference n A t11'1''1 Jtl with ("the parties the counseJ for (Doc. no. .Tanuary 15 calI" ) . pretrial nnnfaronne//\ drrri no lf The parties the pretrial pretrial raised order conference. that I7 number of (Doc. no. 94.) would correct the order. they conference January the Court Amongthe subjects motion (doc. no. 1"05), the Court 15 cal-l-. During same concerns regarding the that conference the initiated immediately Court Court a addressed June (Doc. no. 104.) Upon Pl-aintiff/s February 5, 2015. to continue Court the ("the The Court scheduled another pretrial deficiencies, the the informed 2014, the Court held Georgia Dublin, whi r-h the had addressed in the The parties a. the June I'7 discussed during the January 1-5 had agreed to srrch sf i nrr'la tions of hrrt the narf ies have meet/ consider, were f act aS f i I ect en\/ nOt stipulations. b. The Court directed to confer the parties jointly file an updated versj-on of the proposed and pretrial addressing aforementioned order the January 29, 2015. Defendant concerns prior to dutifully filed an updated pretrial order on that lacked date, but this updated version noticeably participation from Plaintiff. has offered various theories of c. Plaintiff has on none. settfed In damages, but the proposed pretrial version of the consolidated nrr{cr of / pl ei ni-'i f f ! + e 4 r ] nnnnqed damages and l-iabilities. ca1l, inadeguate call- are the followinq: anri nrorli cle er nH ' r n n r i n ete * . 2015 15, 107. ) the proposed pret.rial in inadequacies for in conference on January oil June I7, Counsel are aware thatr a occurred which hi furcation However, Of in the the iSSUes tTanuary L5 cal-l-, he embraced the prospect of bifurcation issues. the Further, for simplification of has not articul-ated a clear and succinct Plaintiff or the theory of damages, the amount thereof, proof method of damages anticipated by of PJ-aintif f . (Id-) theory of damages is of paramount importance Plaintiff's because Defendants are unlikely was aircraft f 's Plaintif Plaintiff alter adeguate theory the concluded during Division darnages is of Defendant routine, but not without appear laying aII even underscored, forwatd_ rests 41 (b) ("ff the action been that end his fails order, or any claim against F. Appx. 517, 517-18 (11'h Cir. and a of pursuant hal-f action civil in the j-ts logistical cOmmanded and for and counsel. to prosecute Fed. R. Civ. P. or to comply with a defendant may move to dismiss it."); Brcdlord 2012) (affirming with the to movinq a case prejudj-ce v. Cartet, district over to Rule 41 (U) where litigation years Dubl-in Tt should be recaIled, responsibilitv the upon Plaintl-ff or a court trial sUmmOned other business aside, the plaintiff these rules objection jury is admittedly have had not of damages. a Juf Of S The Court Jr. Plaintiff conduct q - because Defendants are the George W. Bryce, theory the purpose. and important to rFrnl i remcnf dismissal argue that use January 15 cai-l that the excursion al-so the corporate a cogent and clear articul-ated seriously intended its seeks to prove that ego of An for to record otherwise 481 court plaintiff's spanned two supported i , ' lI r h 1 1 . )tg Perdue Farms, Inc., Call-owav v. dismissal); 2009) (af firmj / \rr m srfr " .r | y r i n l e lr_u irl finding n c r d i s t _r i r - t r - o u r t \s! R u l e 4L ( b ) w h e r e p l a i n t i f f litigation "lesser sanctions just to its possesses inherent 1989). formal power to ' i* ' - ^ 6 ^ n alttPUJCU to "Incident sanctj-ons upon rFncre UAII the action dismissing would its purposes prepared Plaintiff rel-ative Flr^ -^ rraE arr jury in his has to after for trial filing. had for every H!v}/vJLV Dublin n+ e t r i a l r }/ upon the reveal the time further of al-though it jury sanctions to an prejudice." in Court -Ic!-this within to initiate the theory order. case selection. This of that damages, and convene a Plaintiff's strategy case is fourth ranqe. discussions as to his is approaching its the case that I wil-l- not mere expectation informatlon order has appropriately falls opportunity clarify may impose The rcnrimand Plaintiff trial- stipulations, 'u.P^u,a' L L u + c , ln r o n o s e d r-+ counsel will or case until- court Mj-nso v. date and closing the scheduled trial statistical a district !E}Jl the for the judge the or without namely, vacating and spurred have litigants. ei mn'lc bv case" his 864 F.2d 101-, l-02 (11'" JfTLLIJfE The mechanlsm selected the own docket. power, dilatory with not Florida, a G with under of himself Further, police this f +r oLm + V] L !qrrVL rrn fnrward completion"). Suqar Cane Growers Co-op of Cir. fn dismissal_ "avail f ail-ed to r'henr^cs he was oirren that 3l-3 F. Appx. 246, not at ready anniversary of UPON THE FOREGOINGIT assignment earl-ier The case will his to proceed s u m m o n e df o r Until captioned rann rt and the that to tTiAI is when Plaintiff assured that the matter consideration meaningful completes by a is jury purpose. the case is matter Court thc February 17, 2015 is VACATED. scheduled for be reassigned for trial preparation ready IS HER'HBYORDEREDthAt is reopened upon motion by Plaintiff/ C L O S E Df o r all purposes of the statistical 1 flfl ORDER ENlIERED at February, Augusta, Georgria this 6'n 2015. UNITED DISTRICT day of DocketExcerpts v. Dezauche Aircraft Manufacturins& Desisn.LLC et al. (3:llcv 071) Filinq Date DocketNo. Document 7n3t20rr I Complaint (Del. GeorgeBryce not namedas a defendant) TIII4I2OII 4 AmendedComplaint(Del'.Bryce not namedas a defendant) 3tL6t20t2 20 Motion to DismissDefs. Order grantingConsent Degonia Cannon and 5t24t20r? 31 (Def.Brycenamedas Amended Complaint Second a defendant) tU2U20t2 5l Default Judgment entered against I)efendants and Terry Aircraft Mfb. & Design,Garry Webster Tiraboschi t0t29t2013 68 OrderdenyingDefs.' Motion for Summ.J. 12t9t20t3 70 lll4l2014 and Pretrial Ordersetting Conferencefor Trial Date for Il2ll20I4 t2t23t20r3 72 MichaelJohnson WithdrawsasDef's.'Atty Telephone Conference to include new defense counsel, Messrs. SmithandGarner U8t20r4 U9t20t4 74 for Orderresetting PretrialConference Il2ll20l4 U9t20t4 75 Minute Entry regarding Pretrial Conference of 11812014 3t7t20r4 t8 Noticeof PretrialConference 412212014 for 3t12t2014 82 OrderandNotice of PretrialProceedings 3n3t20r4 83 Jury Sel./Trial Assignment f,or6/2412014 set 4t23t2014 89 Jury Sel./TrialAssignment resetfor 6l1612014 6t12t20r4 92 Proposed PretrialOrder(consolidated) PretrialConferencc Dublin in 611712014 6n8t20t4 93 of OrderrequiringI)isclosure Will Call Witnesses 6t19l20r4 94 Minute Entry regarding Pretrial Conferenceof 6n7t2014 6t2512014 95&96 91412014 97 Jury Sel./'l'rial Assignment for 1012812014 set 9126120t4 99 Assignment resetIor l0l2Il20l4 Jury Sel./Trial 9t3012014 100 Trial Pl's Unopposed Motion to Continue 913012014 101 OrdergrantingMotion to Continue rU3l?014 102 Jury Sel./Trial Assignment for 211612014 set t2t9l20l4 103 Jury Sel./TrialAssignmentreset for 2ll7l20l4 (holiday 16'") on U7t20r5 104 OrderandNotice of PretrialProceedings PretrialOrderduell29l20l5; Pretrial [Consolidated Conference fbr 2l5l20l5l set 111312015 105 Consent Motion to Continue PretrialConference Ut5t20l5 Witness Lists submitted Telephone Conflerence U20t20rs I0l Minute Entry regarding Pretrial Conference of 111512015 v2917015 108 Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Def. Bryce (consolidated not updated Pl.) but by

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?