Everest Stables, Inc. v. Jester et al

Filing 78

ORDER re: court's 7/7/16 order 62 - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Nielson shall not provide factual testimony @ trial re: Danzig's Fashion's medical condition.; 2. Count V of Everest's amended complaint 37 is DISMISSED. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/31/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EVEREST STABLES, INC.,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
MICHAEL JESTER, PENN RIDGE
:
FARMS, LLC, and THOMAS REIGLE, :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1631
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2016, upon consideration of the court’s
order (Doc. 62) dated July 7, 2016, wherein the court granted defendants’ motion
(Doc. 47) in limine and excluded from admission at trial testimony by Jeffrey
Nielsen (“Nielsen”), owner of plaintiff Everest Stables, Inc. (“Everest”), relating to
damages from defendants’ alleged negligent failure to ensure that certain
veterinary services were performed on a mare, Danzig’s Fashion, belonging to
Everest, on the grounds that Everest’s negligence claim requires expert testimony
and Nielsen is not a veterinary expert, and following a pretrial conference held on
August 17, 2016, during which the court and the parties discussed the continued
viability of Everest’s negligence claim, to wit: whether Nielsen may give testimony
as to the factual circumstances surrounding the medical condition of Danzig’s
Fashion, even though the court precluded Nielsen from giving opinion testimony as
to the capability of Danzig’s Fashion to successfully breed in its prior order (Doc.
62) granting defendants’ motion in limine, and it appearing that Everest seeks to
establish its negligence claim based exclusively on testimony from Nielsen, and that

defendants oppose the introduction of any such testimony by Nielsen because
Everest cannot prove its negligence claim without expert testimony, and it further
appearing that under Pennsylvania law, plaintiff must demonstrate a causal
connection between conduct of defendant and an alleged injury in order to prove
negligence, see City of Phila. v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 277 F.3d 415, 422 n.9 (3d Cir.
2002) (citing Martin v. Evans, 711 A.2d 458, 461 (Pa. 1998)), and that causation
requires a showing of “proximate cause” as well as “but for” causation, the latter of
which requires proof that injury would not have occurred but for negligent conduct
of defendant, see Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep't of Army of U.S., 55 F.3d 827,
851 (3d Cir. 1995); Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 366 (3d Cir. 1990),
and the court finding that, without expert testimony regarding Danzig’s Fashion’s
capacity to reproduce, Everest cannot state, ipse dixit, that but for defendants’
conduct, Danzig’s Fashion would have produced a foal, and further finding that
Everest’s negligence claim is subject to dismissal for lack of evidence, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Nielsen shall not provide factual testimony at trial relating to Danzig’s
Fashion’s medical condition.

2.

Count V of Everest’s amended complaint (Doc. 37) is dismissed.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania