Amorin et al v. Taishan Gypsum Co., LTD. et al
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 5/20/19. (bpet, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
EDUARDO AND CARMEN AMORIN, et al..
Individually, and on behalf of all
Others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 2:llcv377
V.
TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD, F/K/A
SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD.,
et al,,
Defendants.
MEMOR2^NDUM ORDER
This matter is before the Court for determination of a ''trial
plan" for 175 "Virginia Plaintiffs" who are members of a certified
class of property owners (or former property owners)^ who suffered
various forms of damages caused by Defendant Taishan's defective
drywall sold in Virginia under the "Venture Supply" brand name.
A. Procedural Background
The instant case was part of a larger proceeding before the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which
began in 2009 and involved more than 3,500 properties in Florida,
Louisiana, and Virginia.
Following remand from the MDL to this
^ The Virginia Plaintiffs consist of 73 current owners and 102 former owners
of 175 subject properties (the Court's recitation of the specific number of
Plaintiffs falling into stated categories is not a binding factual finding,
but is offered for context based on counsel's representations).
Court,
the
Virginia
Plaintiffs
and
the
Defendants
competing ''trial plans" to the undersigned Judge.
submitted
Plaintiffs ask
this Court to adopt the pre-remand rulings of Judge Fallon, who
presided over the MDL in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and
Defendants ask this Court to revisit, and reject, various rulings
made by Judge Fallon, most notably the "damages formula" adopted
to calculate "remediation damages
on a class-wide basis for all
Plaintiffs that are current owners of an affected property.
Judge Fallon's MDL rulings did not endeavor to collectively
address any of the Plaintiffs "other damages" (including "loss of
use" damages) in light of the widely varying facts specific to
each Plaintiff, finding instead that remand to the appropriate
district
court
where
the
properties
are
situated
(Virginia,
Florida, and Louisiana) was necessary to allow for individualized
damages calculations.
Depending on
the resolution of various
post-remand issues, the instant case could require as many as 175
damages evidentiary hearings.
2 Due to the toxic content of the drywall installed in the thousands of
subject properties, Judge Fallon concluded that the "evidence-based and
field tested" remediation plan requires homes with toxic drywall to be
"stripped to the studs (with all wiring, plumbing, fixtures, cabinets, HVAC
systems and insulation [as well as most flooring types] removed), cleaned
by wet-wipe and HEPA vacuum, and examined and tested by an independent
entity before the property is brought back to its originally intended
condition." In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL
2047, 2017 WL 1421627, at *11 (E.D. La. Apr. 21, 2017).
There are
several
unique features
of
the instant multi-
district litigation, including: (1) default judgement was entered
against Defendants many years ago, leaving the proper damages
calculation as the only issue to be litigated, and this Court
therefore emphasizes that its intent is to develop a streamlined
and expeditious plan to conduct any necessary damages evidentiary
hearings, not "trials," as Defendants have long-since forfeited
their
trial
rights;
(2) as
characterized
by
Judge
Fallen,
Defendants' litigation conduct appears to reveal that their "whole
approach is just delay," and even if Defendants did not have the
specific intent to delay, their conduct (defaulting, appearing to
challenge
jurisdiction,
appealing
jurisdictional
rulings,
withdrawing from the case after an adverse result on jurisdiction,
appearing to challenge class certification after it was completed,
filing subsequent interlocutory appeals, etc.) slowed the instant
case to a "glacial pace," and effectively deprived Plaintiffs of
recovery for nearly a decade even though liability has long been
established, Jt. App'x 23, at 24:2-18,
(3) before adopting the
formula applicable to current owners. Judge Fallon conducted a
hearing on "remediation damages, and Defendants fully participated
and had the opportunity to cross-examine Plaintiffs' experts, call
^ After transfer back to this Court, Defendants continue to challenge matters
already decided in the MDL, including the propriety of Judge Fallon's class
certification decision and the damages formula for current owners.
their
own
experts,
and
otherwise
challenge
the
remediation
formula;^ and (4) the remediation formula adopted in the MDL is
being applied by Judge Fallon as to the Louisiana Plaintiffs, and
has likewise been adopted by Judge Cooke in the Southern District
of Florida as to the remanded Florida Plaintiffs.
Jt. App'x 20,
21.
B. Ruling on the Remediation Formula
On April 30, 2019, this Court conducted a hearing on the
parties' vastly diverging ''trial plans."
After hearing from
counsel from both sides, for the reasons outlined in Judge Cooke's
order adopting "all of Judge Fallon's [MDL] findings of facts and
legal conclusions," Jt. App'x 21, at 2, this Court similarly adopts
all of Judge Fallon's findings of fact and legal conclusions made
prior to his suggestion of remand.
applies
Fourth
Circuit
precedent
In so ruling,
reflecting
an
this Court
apparent
presiamptive rule that it "would be improper to permit a transferor
judge to overturn orders of a transferee judge even though error
in the latter might result in reversal of the final judgment of
^ Defendants also had the opportunity in the MDL to dispute the class
certification decision, yet they failed to appear to advance such challenge,
thereby undercutting any suggestion that they will be denied due process
through application of a class-wide damages process predicated on the
"commonality" and "typicality" of the remediation claims.
Accordingly,
even assuming, for the sake of argument, that such certification decision
was in error, this Court would be hesitant to allow Defendants to revisit
this previously forfeited matter, especially after efforts to de-certify
the class were already denied by another coequal federal judge.
the transferor court."
In re Food Lion, Inc., Fair Labor Standards
Act Effective Scheduling Litig., 73 F.3d 528, 531 (4th Cir. 1996)
(quoting
Weigle,
S.A.,
The
Judicial
Panel
on
Multidistrict
Litigation, Transferor Courts and Transferee Courts, 78 F.R.D.
575, 577 (1977)); s^ 6 Newberg on Class Actions § 18:47 (5th ed.).
In other words, the wisdom of the transferee judge's rulings is a
matter to be resolved by the appropriate appellate court.
Alternatively, even if this Court applies a lesser degree of
deference, in light of the opportunities Defendants have already
had in the MDL to contest class-wide remediation damages, and the
absence of any changed circumstances, this Court would still adopt
Judge Fallon's ruling.
(identifying
different
the
See 6 Newberg on Class Actions § 18:47
varying
circuits
as
degrees
''no
of
deference
collateral
applied
review,"
across
"substantial
deference" and "law of the case"); Jt. App'x 21 (Judge Cooke's
review of the spectrum of approaches from the Fourth Circuit's
"bright line rule" precluding review, to the Fifth Circuit's "lawof-the-case" approach, finding that Judge Fallon's rulings should
be adopted under any approach); cf. Carlson v. Bos. Sci. Coirp.,
856 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining that, even under law
of the case doctrine, a judge should proceed with an added degree
of hesitancy when asked to overrule the earlier deteimination of
another coequal judge).^
of
the
case"
demonstrate
standard
that
Judge
Assuming that the least deferential *'law
were
applicable,
Fallon's
damages
Defendants
ruling
fail
violates
to
due
process and/or conflicts with Virginia law merely because it is
derived from a mathematical model tied to square footage rather
than being based on an individualized inspection of each subject
property followed by an "estimate" of the cost to remediate such
structure.®
Notably, not only did Defendants fully participate in
the MDL damages hearing addressing the propriety of the remediation
formula, but they were voluntarily absent during the damages class
certification
process,
a
process
that
necessarily
involved
5 The Court acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit's recent Carlson opinion
addresses a transferor district court's review of an MDL summary judgment
ruling without making any reference to the "strict" rule of adherence
suggested in Food Lion.
Carlson, 856 F.3d at 325.
However, Defendants'
suggestion that Carlson intended to overrule Food Lion is undercut by the
fact that: (1) Food Lion is not even discussed in Carlson; and (2) a panel
of the Fourth Circuit lacks authority to overrule an earlier panel's
decision.
McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 332-33 (4th Cir. 2004)
(en banc). This Court need not determine whether these published opinions
"conflict" because, as discussed herein, this Court would adopt Judge
Fallon's ruling under the less deferential standard applied in Carlson.
® The Court notes that Virginia law supports relying on reasonable estimates
of damages, including estimates based on formulas, as long as the case-
specific record supports such approach.
See Fairfax Cty. Redevelopment &
Hous. Auth. V. Worcester Bros. Co., 257 Va. 382, 389-91, 514 S.E.2d 147,
151-52 (1999) (acknowledging that "the Eichleay formula" for estimating
unabsorbed home office expenses has been criticized as "an inadequate
substitute for direct evidence" of actual damages, but nevertheless allowing
the plaintiff to rely on such formula); Gwaltney v. Reed, 196 Va. 505, 50708, 84 S.E.2d 501, 502 (1954) (explaining that the plaintiff has the burden
to prove damages "with reasonable certainty" and that a plaintiff may do so
by "furnish[ing] evidence of sufficient facts or circumstances to permit at
least an intelligent and probable estimate thereof") (emphasis added); Va.
Prac. Construction Law § 11:4 (indicating that a plaintiff must set forth
sufficient facts "to allow the fact-finder to make an informed estimate of
damages").
addressing
the ''commonality"
and
plaintiffs' remediation damages.
"typicality"
of
the
various
See In re Chinese-Manufactured
Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 2047, 2014 WL 4809520, at *4,
*15 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 2014) (concluding that the damages class
should be certified and that "the average cost of repairing class
members' homes is subject to calculation on a formulaic, square
footage basis")
While
this
Court
declines
to
revisit
Judge
Fallon's
MDL
rulings, it notes that Judge Fallon based his damages ruling on
facially reasonable factual findings based on in-court credibility
determinations made after hearing live expert testimony that has
not been heard by this Court.
include
the
following:
(1)
Judge Fallon's fact-based findings
the
scope
of
remediation
work
is
consistent regardless of the building type; (2) the cost of the
remediation work per square foot is consistent across various
states and can be modified to reflect local conditions; and (3) the
remediation formula is not tied only to a small sample of seven
homes (as argued by Defendants) but rather has been tested by
Plaintiffs' experts over years, across various states, and proven
As stated at the hearing before this Court, the Court disagrees with
Defendants' contention that Judge Fallon's formula is merely an "advisory"
ruling entitled to no deference based on the phrasing in his suggestion of
remand order. At the time such order was issued. Judge Fallon had already
held, at the conclusion of a full adversarial process, that the damages
formula was applicable to all current owners of properties containing
Taishan drywall. Similarly, this Court disagrees with Defendants' efforts
to characterize Judge Fallon's ruling as a matter outside his authority.
to be "a reliable measure of the costs on a sc^uare foot basis for
a
full scope
adjusted
for
remediation
location
of
and
Chinese
time."
drywall
In
re
properties,
when
Chinese-Manufactured
Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 2047, 2017 WL 1421627, at *12
(E.D. La. Apr. 21, 2017).^
C. Remediation Damages - Current Owners
As to any Plaintiff that is a ''current owner" of an affected
property
that
has
not
been
fully
remediated
(seventy
one
claimants), the damages formula adopted by Judge Fallon will be
applied to determine remediation damages.
As to current owners
that have completely remediated (two claimants), the parties agree
that the actual cost of the remediation work is the appropriate
property damage
award.^
For
those
Plaintiffs
governed by the
formula, the appropriate inputs will be: (1) the litigated "under
® Judge Fallon expressly concluded that the formula is "most likely" as
precise as the case-by-case inspection approach proposed by Defendants, which
would
still
turn
on
remediation repairs.
a
builder's
"estimation"
of
the
cost
of
extensive
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall, 2017 WL 1421627, at
*14, 14 n.l.
^ This Court adopts Judge Fallon's method for determining when a home is
completely remediated, which includes wet-wipe/HEPA cleaning, and inspection
and certification by an engineering firm that the property has been
adequately cleaned of all contaminants emitted by the defective drywall.
While Plaintiffs' counsel represents that only two current owners have fully
remediated, to the extent relevant evidence suggests inconsistencies
regarding whether one or more additional properties were fully remediated,
through and including the cleaning and certification stage, such matter may
be explored by Defendants through the same limited discovery process
applicable to ownership, square footage, etc.
air square footage"; and (2) the 2019 RS Means National square
foot unit price, adjusted by locality.
Although the Court adopts the damages formula for current
owners
who
have
not
fully
remediated,
the
Court
agrees
with
Defendants that some limited written discovery should be permitted
in order to verify ownership and square footage, as well as "setoffs" that must be made based on proceeds that claimants received
from earlier settlements
with different defendants.
Defendants
have already been provided preliminary proof of these matters, as
well as Plaintiffs' proposed calculations under the formula.
While each current owner may have a claim for "other dcimages"
(loss of use and enjoyment, medical damages, etc.), no discovery
will be permitted into these damages at this time.
will
expedite
the
determination
of
Such limitation
remediation
damages
as
Plaintiffs' counsel has represented that the vast majority of
current owners will likely elect not to pursue the smaller quantum
of "other damages" if they can obtain a final and enforceable
judgment on the remediation damages within the next several months.
D. Procedure Forward - Current Owners
To
effectuate
the
expediated
calculation
of
remediation
damages for current owners. Magistrate Judge Krask will oversee
the limited discovery necessary for application of the formula to
each of the seventy-one current owners of a property that has not
been completely remediated.
As to the two Plaintiffs that have
completely remediated, Judge Krask will resolve any disputes that
may exist over
the
actual remediation
costs
expended by such
Plaintiffs.
All ''formula discovery" for current owners will proceed on
the same expedited timeline, and should culminate in Judge Krask's
issuance
of
ownership,
an
under
R&R
air
addressing
square
any
remaining
footage,
contests
set-offs,
and/or
over
the
completeness of remediation, within 120 days after entry of this
Order.
The discovery sought by Defendants will proceed solely in
written form.
to
curtail
While the instant Order should not be interpreted
Judge
Krask's
discretion
in
any
way,
the
Court
reiterates for the purpose of minimizing disputes between the
parties, that based on both the representations made to the Court
by all counsel and Defendants' long-term exposure to the relevant
facts, the Court anticipates the need for minimal discovery to
allow for proper application of the remediation formula.
No later
than Friday, May 24, 2019, counsel shall submit to Judge Krask a
written proposal for deadlines for remediation discovery. Counsel
shall confer prior to making such submissions in an effort to
narrow disagreements.
The parties proposed discovery plans should
have discovery cut-off dates no later than July 12, 2019.
10
After the R&R is issued by Judge Krask, the parties will have
fourteen calendar days to file any objections and seven calendar
days to respond to the opposing party's objections.
By the time
the
have spoken
R&R
is
issued,
counsel
for
Plaintiffs
should
individually to each current owner regarding whether he or she
intends to pursue ''other damages" claims, and Plaintiffs' counsel
shall submit the necessary filings to identify those current-owner
Plaintiffs
electing
to
waive
their claims
to further damages.
This Court will expeditiously rule on any objections to the R&R
and will issue final Rule 54(b) Judgments as to those currentowner Plaintiffs that elect not to pursue "other damages."
To the
extent a small subset of current owners elect to pursue "other
damages," they will be placed on a discovery plan and evidentiary
hearing schedule consistent with that of former owners.
E. Damages - Former Owners
One hundred and two claimants no longer own the property
containing,
Twenty-three
or
of
previously
containing,
the
owners
former
contaminated
partially
drywall.
remediated
their
property prior to transfer, whereas seventy-nine others performed
no remediation before they transferred and/or lost ownership, with
some former owners losing their "uninhabitable" property through
foreclosure or short-sale based on their inability to access the
11
fiinds owed by Defendants to allow them to remediate {and continue
living in) their homes.
Determining the proper measure of remediation damages for
former owners is conceptually distinct from current owners for two
reasons: (1) Judge Fallon's adoption of the damages formula in the
MDL proceedings was limited to current owners; and (2) former
owners
lack
the
ability
to
complete
the
additional
repairs
necessary to fully remediate the damage caused by Defendants.
On
May 3, 2019, Judge Fallen issued an order addressing the extension
of the formula to former owners under Louisiana law, and concluded
that former owners that performed remediation prior to transfer
are entitled to damages under the formula, whereas former owners
that did not remediate prior
to
transfer are not necessarily
entitled to formula damages, but are entitled to a rebuttable
presumption
that
formula
damages
are
the
proper
"diminution in value" of the subject property.
measure
of
In re Chinese-
Manufactured Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. CV MDL 2047, 2019 WL
1984097, at *6 (E.D. La. May 3, 2019).
Having carefully reviewed Judge Fallon's May 3, 2019 Order
(this
post-remand
ruling
is
not
binding
as
to
the
Virginia
Plaintiffs), as well as Virginia case law, this Court is unwilling
to adopt the formula as a binding measure of damages to compensate
any
foimier
owners
for
the
physical
12
damage
to
their
former
property,
The
Court
acknowledges
the
''equitable"
argument
advanced by Plaintiffs at the hearing, which seeks extension of
the formula
to former owners due to Defendants' delay tactics
purportedly causing many Plaintiffs to transfer their homes in a
depreciated condition; however: (1) Plaintiffs have not identified
any Virginia case law
that would support the award of repair
damages to a party that did not perform the repairs and is now
incapable
of
performing
such
repairs;
and
(2)
any "equities"
favoring the Plaintiffs that result from the numerous delays caused
by Defendants appear to be more appropriately accounted for through
an award of "other damages," including loss of use and enjoyment.^^
Although this Court does not find that the damages formula is
controlling as to any former owners, it agrees with and adopts
Judge
Fallon's
remediation
determination
reasoning
damage
of
a
and
formula
former
is
conclusions
not
owner's
only
finding
relevant
"diminution"
that
the
to
the
damages,
but
creates a rebuttable presumption of the diminution in market value.
Accordingly, in this case-specific default class-action context.
Although this Court does not extend the "binding" formula as far as Judge
Fallon did, the Court does not foreclose future arguments on this issue if
supported by Virginia case law (for example, the calculus would clearly be
different if a Plaintiff that transferred a property without effectively
remediating was subject to liability to the purchaser based on the transfer
of a contaminated property).
It does not appear that Judge Fallon's decision to apply the formula as
binding to former owners that performed remediation was grounded in equity.
13
the formula is accepted by the Court as valid and reliable evidence
of the diminution in value of the subject property caused by the
defective drywall,
unless Defendants present contrary evidence
demonstrating that such formula should not control as to a specific
affected property.
Defendants will be afforded some discovery in
the Court's discretion, but the case will not proceed with the
full extent of discovery applicable outside the default context.
This
Court's
acceptance
of
the
remediation
formula
as
competent evidence of the diminution in market value is based on
Virginia law acknowledging the relevance of repair damages
calculating
diminution
in
value,
Defendants'
long-term
to
delay
tactics (which caused some Plaintiffs to transfer, rather than
adequately repair, their homes), the fact that liability has been
established for approximately a decade yet no damages have been
recovered,
and
the
attendant
difficulty
in
determining
the
reduction in market value of the subject properties so many years
after the harm was suffered by the Plaintiffs (with this difficulty
being
attributable
Shircliff,
218
Va.
solely
202,
to
Defendants).
207-08,
237
S.E.2d
See
92,
Averett
95-96
v.
(1977)
(explaining, in a case involving damage to personal property, that
the cost of ''restor[ing] by repair," and the diminution in "market
Judge Fallen's May 3, 2019 order aptly observed that calculating damages
based on the decreased property value through market-based evidence will be
a "Herculean task" due to Defendants' decade-long course of "delay, delay,
delay." In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall, 2019 WL 1984097, at *6.
14
value," are "merely evidentiary methods for determining the amount
which will reasonably compensate the owner for his actual pecuniary
loss sustained as a result of a negligent or wrongful act," and
that "[t]he reasonable cost of repairs is one of the evidentiary
factors in determining the market value of an automobile after it
has been damaged"); Lee v. Bell, 237 Va. 626, 629-31, 379 S.E.2d
464, 466-67 (1989) (finding, in a case involving a dispute over
damages in a tenant/landlord dispute, that if the defendant seeks
to establish that "repair or replacement of wrongfully removed or
destroyed property results in an unjustified betterment of the
plaintiff,
. . . the defendant should have the initial burden of
going forward with some evidence of depreciation, unless it appears
from the plaintiff's evidence"); see also 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dep't
of Envtl ♦ Quality, 42 Va. App. 65, 82-83, 590 S.E.2d 84, 92-93
(2003) (favorably citing to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929,
for the proposition that "damages for injury to real property
include compensation for loss of use of the property and other
consequential
damage,
injuries
whether
in
measured
addition
by
to
any
restoration
permanent
or
market
property
value")
(emphasis added); Huberth v. Holly, 120 N.C. App. 348, 353-54, 462
S.E.2d 239, 243 (1995) (explaining that "the general rule" for
negligent damage to real property measures damages through the
decrease in market value, and that: (1) repair and replacement
15
costs can inform the decision on diminution in value; and (2) when
''the land is used for a purpose that is personal to the owner, the
replacement cost is [itself] an acceptable measure of damages") Such finding fully comports with any "equities" owed to Defendants
in light of
significant
the
timeline of
number
of
this case, as it appears that a
former
owners
would
have
effectively
remediated had Defendants' tactics not caused the instant default
judgment case to live on for a decade with no compensation to such
deserving Plaintiffs.
F. Procedure Forward - Former Owners
The Court will utilize the services of a Special Master to
resolve all damages claimed by former owners, and the Special
Master will be tasked (by separate written order) with overseeing
discovery,
resolving disputes,
(1) diminution
in
value
and issuing an
damages
for
former
R&R
addressing:
owners,
with
the
remediation damages formula serving as a rebuttable presumption of
the diminution in value; and (2) "other damages" (loss of use,
alternative living expenses, medical damages, bankruptcy losses,
etc.).
Counsel are instructed to confer and attempt to agree to
a Special Master with sufficient experience and availability to
handle such matters.
If counsel cannot agree to a Special Master
by noon on Friday, May 24, 2019, they shall each file a notice on
the
docket
providing
two
proposed
16
names
with
relevant
qualifications outlined, no later than close of business on that
same day.
By May 29, 2019,
counsel
for
Plaintiffs
and
counsel for
Defendants shall each file a Notice identifying ten Plaintiffs
that no longer own the affected property to serve as ''Priority
Plaintiffs" for evidentiary hearings.
In order to obtain the best
representative sample, of the ten Plaintiffs identified by each
side,
two should have performed partial remediation and eight
should have performed no remediation prior to transfer.
On that
same date, counsel shall submit a written proposal for discovery
deadlines for the Priority Plaintiffs, including fact discovery
and expert discovery relevant to both the diminution in value of
the
former-owners'
affected
properties
and
"other
damages."
Counsel shall confer prior to making such submissions in an effort
to narrow disagreements.
Judge
determine
Krask
whether
will
a
review
the
scheduling
proposed
hearing
necessary, and issue a Scheduling Order.
Krask's
discretion,
it
is
this
or
discovery
conference
plans,
call
is
Without curtailing Judge
Court's
intention
that
the
evidentiary hearings before the Special Master be completed for
all twenty Priority Plaintiffs before the end of October of this
year.
After Judge Krask issues the Scheduling Order, the Special
The Court acknowledges the May 7, 2019 letter submitted by Taishan and
17
Master
will
oversee
and
regulate
all
relevant
proceedings,
including discovery disputes.
This Court once again reiterates that, in light of Defendants'
default, the Court is authorizing appropriate limited discovery in
its
discretion
accordingly,
allocated
prior
the
for
scope
to
a
of
evidentiary
damages
discovery
hearings
evidentiary
and
will
the
be
damages evidentiary hearing, not a ''trial."
are completed,
hearing;
amount
of
consistent
time
with
a
After the hearings
the Special Master will issue an R&R,
and
the
parties will have the standard objection periods set forth in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53.
resolved,
the
Court
will
afford
After the Priority cases are
the
parties
a
short
time
to
determine whether any remaining claims can be settled, and if they
cannot, the Court will consider creative alternatives to further
expedite
the
resolution
of
the
remaining
claims,
including
appointing additional Special Masters so that multiple evidentiary
hearings can be conducted simultaneously.
BNBM's counsel, which suggests the potential for further delays in this
Court based on counsel's obligations in the parallel actions in Florida and
Louisiana.
However, Defendants have no less obligation to the speedy
resolution of the Virginia claims than they do to the claims pending in
other states.
Accordingly, any defense requests for delays in this tenyear-old default judgment case will be viewed with extreme disfavor.
As
this "timing" issue was raised by Taishan before any formal damages discovery
has commenced, it provides more than adequate time for defense counsel to
ensure that additional attorneys at its firm are familiarized with the
details of the Virginia cases to ensure that defense counsel will be
available for any necessary proceedings in this action.
18
The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Order
to all counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Mark S. Davis
Chief United States District Judge
Norfolk, Virginia
May
2019
In light of the above ruling, the Clerk should administratively terminate
Plaintiffs' motion seeking adoption of their trial plan. EOF No. 69.
19
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?