Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox et al

Filing 381

ORDER denying without prejudice 253 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 3/6/2020. (jwr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC. PLAINTIFF V. NO. 1:17-CV-2-DMB-DAS JAMES B. COX and CATHERINE A. COX d/b/a JC DESIGNS d/b/a WIRE N RINGS and JOHN DOE a/k/a LEROY and JOHN DOES Numbers 1 through 99 DEFENDANTS ORDER On January 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on specific claims in this case. Doc. #253. Since then, the Court has ruled as inadmissible, in whole or part, specific exhibits relied on by both parties in their briefing on the motion. See Docs. #374, #375, #376. Because these evidentiary rulings necessarily impact the summary judgment arguments advanced by the parties, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [253] is DENIED without prejudice. See generally Martin v. Blaser Swisslube, Inc., No. 03-6116, 2005 WL 345291, at *7 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2005). (“A motion for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice pending the outcome of a Daubert hearing, when disposition of the motion depends on a determination of the admissibility of expert testimony.”). The defendants may refile their motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days of this order. The refiled motion may not seek summary judgment on additional claims or advance arguments not made in the original filing. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of March, 2020. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?