Gamboa et al v. Centrifugal Casting Machine Company
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 27 MOTION for Continuance of Submission date of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 33 MOTION for Leave to File Reply To Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment , GRANTING 18 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time Expert Deadlines, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 30 MOTION for Protective Order, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 25 Agreed MOTION for Extension of Time Submission Date of Defendant Centrifugal Casting Machine Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HECTOR & EUGENIA GAMBOA ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTRIFUGAL CASTING MACHINE CO .,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION H-14-1273
M EMORANDUM O PINION & O RDER
Pending before this court are several motions: 1) defendant’s repleading of its motion for
leave to designate responsible third parties and request for spoliation of evidence sanctions against
the responsible third parties (Dkt. 16); 2) plaintiffs’ motion for extension of expert deadlines (Dkt.
18); 3) defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 24); 4) plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to
extend deadlines (Dkt. 25) relating to motion for summary judgment responses; 5) plaintiffs’ motion
for continuance of the submission date (Dkt. 27) for the defendant’s motion for summary judgment;
6) plaintiffs’ motion for protective order (Dkt. 30); and 7) defendant’s motion for leave to file excess
pages (Dkt. 33) in its reply to the motion for summary judgment.
Defendant’s repleading of its motion for leave to designate Bearings Plus, Inc. and Waukesha
Bearings Corporation as responsible third parties is unopposed, and is therefore GRANTED.
Defendant’s request for spoliation of evidence sanctions against the responsible third parties is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE until more evidence has been developed, or in the case of the jury
instruction request, until the court considers jury instructions as a whole. Plaintiffs’ motion for
extension of expert deadlines is GRANTED.
As to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs concede that they have no
evidence to support their manufacturing defect claim (Dkt. 26 at 5). Therefore, the court GRANTS
summary judgment in favor of defendant on the manufacturing defect claim. However, the
remainder of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
because plaintiff’s expert reports have been deemed timely. Further, the court DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE the remaining motions as moot (Dkts. 25, 27, 30, 33), because they relate to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment which has been denied.
The court ORDERS that parties submit a revised docket control order within 20 days.
It is so ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on January 21, 2015.
___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge
2
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?