Kennedy v. Jefferson County, Mississippi et al
ORDER denying 366 Motion to Strike; plaintiff Kennedy shall file a response to the defendants' motion (docket entry 362) within 14 days from date of entry of this Order; amendments/revision of the Pre-Trial Order, jury instruction conference, and trial are postponed until further notice. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/2/2016 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JERRY L. KENNEDY
CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:13-cv-226(DCB)(MTP)
JEFFERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF JEFFERSON
This cause is before the Court on defendants Jefferson County
Hospital and Board of Trustees of Jefferson County Hospital’s
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Motion
in Limine (docket entry 362), and on plaintiff Jerry L. Kennedy’s
Motion to Strike the defendants’ motion (docket entry 366). Having
carefully considered the motions and responses, as well as the
applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds as follows:
Mississippi Department of Employment Security’s finding that the
plaintiff was discharged for insubordination, and (2) the effect of
the plaintiff’s 2009 and 2012 employment contracts not being made
part of the Hospital’s minutes.
The defendants suggest that these
two issues, together or separately, are dispositive of this case
and warrant consideration by the Court.
Summary Judgment in favor of defendant Jefferson County was
granted on July 13, 2015, and said defendant was dismissed.
settlements between the plaintiff and defendants Dudley Guice and
Regina Reed, and said defendants were also dismissed.
settlement conference, defendants’ counsel advised Magistrate Judge
judgment, or in the alternative motion in limine.
In response, the plaintiff has filed a motion to strike,
claiming that the deadline for dispositive motions has passed, and
that the Court previously announced that the issues raised by the
defendants would be determined at trial. The Court finds, however,
that, as stated in the Advisory Committee Notes for the 1963
amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[t]he very
mission of the summary judgment procedure is ... to assess the
proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.”
Likewise, motions in limine are “made prior to trial for the
existence of, alluding to, or offering evidence on matters so
highly prejudicial to the moving party that a timely motion to
strike or an instruction by the court to the jury to disregard the
offending matter cannot overcome its prejudicial influence on the
O’Rear v. Fruehauf Corp., 554 F.2d 1304, 1306 n.1
(5th Cir. 1977)(citation and quotations omitted).
Both types of
motion are utilized to determine whether there are any genuine
issues for trial.
In light of the recent dismissal of defendants Guice and Reed,
the Court finds that the issues have been limited, and might be
Furthermore, the defendants have not waived their right
to seek a resolution of these issues pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
See Swanson v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 1996 WL 613158, *1 (N.D. Ill.
Oct. 22, 1996).
The Court shall therefore deny the plaintiff’s motion to
strike the defendants’ motions, and the plaintiff shall file a
response to the defendants’ motions within 14 days from the date of
entry of this Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kennedy’s Motion to Strike
(docket entry 366) the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or,
in the alternative, Motion in Limine, is DENIED;
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Kennedy shall file a response
alternative, Motion in Limine, within fourteen (14) days from the
date of entry of this Order;
FURTHER ORDERED that amendments/revision of the Pre-Trial
Order, jury instruction conference, and trial are postponed pending
resolution of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment or in
the alternative in limine.
SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of May, 2016.
/s/ David Bramlette
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?