Ferrell et al v. BGF Global LLC et al
ORDER denying as set forth herein 106 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/9/17. (ml)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TRUDY FERRELL, individually and
as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF GREGORY FERRELL,
BGF GLOBAL, LLC,
Case No. CIV-15-404-D
On November, 2, 2014, Plaintiff’s husband was killed in a traffic accident
with a tractor trailer truck driven by Defendant Lawrance Dildine. Plaintiff brought
the present action against Dildine, his employer, Defendant BGF Global, LLC, and
other defendants, alleging Dildine was negligent and acting within the scope of his
employment at the time of the accident. Plaintiff also alleged BGF was
independently liable under the theories of negligent hiring, training, re-training,
supervision, retention, and entrustment.
On November 11, 2015, BGF moved for summary judgment, alleging that
pursuant to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in Jordan v. Cates, 1997 OK 9,
935 P.2d 289, it bore no separate and independent liability to Plaintiff since it
conceded Dildine was its employee and acting within the scope of his employment
when the accident occurred. The Court granted BGF’s Motion, concluding that
under the weight of relevant authority considering the issue, Plaintiff’s claims of
negligent hiring, training, re-training, supervision, retention, and entrustment should
be dismissed as a matter of law. See Ferrell v. BGF Global, LLC, No. CIV-15-404D, 2016 WL 4402050, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2016).1
On May 8, 2017, Dildine and BGF filed a subsequent Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment With Respect to Certain Damages [Doc. No. 103]. Plaintiff has
moved to strike this Motion on the grounds it violates LCvR 56.1(a), which states
that “[a]bsent leave of court, each party may file only one motion [for summary
judgment] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.” (emphasis added).
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Although the rule, on its
face, operates to prohibit BGF from filing a successive motion for summary
judgment without leave of Court, Dildine was not part of BGF’s first motion and the
issue presented in BGF’s motion – the availability of independent claims for
negligence against an employer who admitted respondeat superior liability – had no
effect on his respective liability. Moreover, the Court finds that striking the present
motion under these circumstances would be antithetical to the purpose of summary
judgment, which is to narrow the issues for trial. See Burnette v. Dow Chemical Co.,
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the Court to rescind its
decision in light of an alleged intervening change in controlling law [Doc. No. 94].
849 F.2d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 1988) (noting that summary judgment “is properly
regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the
Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action.’”) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 327 (1986)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 106] is DENIED as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August 2017.
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?