Sadler et al v. Advanced Bionics, LLC

Filing 166

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 3/15/13 sustaining 163 Motion for Leave to File Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Emotional Distress Claim. Motion for summary judgment on the emotional distress claim shall have responses filed on or before March 21, 2013. Any replies shall be filed on or before MARCH 27, 2013. Then the matter will be submitted for ruling. cc:counsel (DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-00450-H

BRIAN and MICHELLE SADLER
Individually and on behalf of their
minor child, B.S.

PLAINTIFFS

V.
ADVANCED BIONICS, LLC

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Advanced Bionics moves for leave to file a renewed motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiffs’ emotional distress claims. In their original motion, Advanced Bionics argued that Brian
and Michelle Sadler personally could not recover noneconomic damages as a result of Breanna’s
injuries under Kentucky’s physical impact rule. However, on December 20, 2012, after the parties
had fully briefed the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a decision
abrogating the physical impact rule, which had existed for much of Kentucky’s jurisprudential
history. Instead, the Kentucky Supreme Court adopted a less stringent rule allowing for recovery
for noneconomic damages where the plaintiffs at issue suffered serious or severe emotional damages
regardless of their physical contact with the source of the injury. Osborne v. Keeney, -- S.W.3d ----,
2012 WL 6634129 (Ky. Dec. 20, 2012). The change in intervening law deprived both parties of the
opportunity to argue for or against Brian and Michelle Sadler’s emotional distress damages.
According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), the Court may consent to a
modification of the dispositive motion scheduling order for good cause. The Court finds that

1

Advanced Bionics has produced good cause sufficient to grant the motion for leave to file a renewed
motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ emotional distress claim because of the important
change in intervening law that effectively rendered the arguments in Plaintiffs’ and Advanced
Bionics’ briefs supporting or contesting the Motion for Summary Judgment moot.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to file a renewed Motion
for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ emotional distress claim is SUSTAINED.
The Court, having allowed the filing of a renewed motion for summary judgment on the
emotional distress claim, will give Defendant an opportunity to file an expedited response and
Plaintiffs an expedited reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment on the emotional
distress claim shall have any responses filed on or before March 21, 2013. Any replies shall
be filed on or before MARCH 27, 2013. Then the matter will be submitted for ruling.

March 15, 2013

cc:

Counsel of Record

2