Smith v. Teledyne Continental Motors Inc

Filing 321

ORDER denying (294) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 9:10-cv-02152-WOB; denying (329) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in case 9:10-cv-02546-WOB. Signed by Honorable William O Bertelsman on 1/30/2013.Associated Cases: 9:10-cv-02152-WOB, 9:10-cv-02546-WOB(ahat, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
CONSOLIDATED
CASE NO. 9:10-CV-2152-SB-WOB
EDWARD I. SMITH

PLAINTIFF

VS.
TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS,
INC.

DEFENDANT
AND

CASE NO. 9:10-CV-2546-SB-WOB
JENNIFER DAWN JONES, Individually
and as Administrator of the Estate
of Robert Gary Jones

PLAINTIFF

VS.
TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.,
ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant
RPM Technik’s motions for summary judgment as to plaintiff
Smith’s sixth cause of action.

See Doc. 294 (filed in

9:10cv2152); Doc. 329 (filed in 9:10cv2546).

The Court finds

that oral argument is unnecessary to the resolution of this
motion.
RPM Technik’s narrow ground for summary judgment is that
Smith’s designated Stephen Cupschalk as his expert, but withdrew
him, and did not thereafter timely name a substitute expert.
RPM Technik maintains that, consequently, Smith has no evidence

to support his claim of negligence.

RPM Technik recognizes that

Smith assigned his claims to Plaintiff Jones pursuant to their
settlement, but contends Jones takes the claim as it stood at
the time of assignment, along with its lack of timely designated
expert.

See Doc. 294 at 2-3 (filed in 9:10cv2152); Doc. Doc.

329 (filed in 9:10cv2546); Doc. 348 at 2 (filed in 9:10cv2546).
RPM Technik cites no authority for the proposition that
plaintiff Jones may not use her own experts at trial in support
of her assigned negligence claim.

The Court agrees with Smith’s

response on this subject, and need not discuss Smith’s arguments
about the strength of Jones’ evidence to dispose of the motion.
See Doc. 308 at 2-9 (filed in 9:10cv2152); Doc. 344 at 2-9
(filed in 9:10cv2546).
Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and the Court being
otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED that RPM Technik’s motions for summary
judgment as to plaintiff Smith’s sixth cause of action, now
assigned to Jones (Doc. 294 in Case 9:10cv2152; Doc. 329 in
9:10cv2546) be, and are hereby, DENIED.
This 30th day of January, 2013.