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)

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