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)

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
'l.ist

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