Beattie v. Skyline Corporation

Filing 262

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CMH Homes. Inc. and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.'s 179 MOTION to Exclude the Plaintiffs' Designated Expert; DENYING as moot CMH Homes, Inc.'s 210 MOTION to Strike New Arguments or Motio n for Leave to File Surreply; DENYING as moot Bob's Home Services, LLC's 234 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding the Number of Lag Bolts Used and Bob's Home Services, LLC's 235 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Russell Robb; GRANTING Plaintiffs' 236 MOTION in Limine Number One, 237 MOTION in Limine Number Two and 238 MOTION in Limine Number Three; CMH Homes, Inc. and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.'s 239 OMNIBUS MOTION in Limine has been taken under advisement; DENYING Plaintiffs' 244 MOTION to Bifurcate Settlement Negotiations. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 12/22/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

JONATHAN BEATTIE and
HEATHER BEATTIE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-2528

SKYLINE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation,
CMH HOMES, INC., d/b/a LUV HOMES #760 and
VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC.,
Defendants,
v.
BOB’S HOME SERVICES, LLC,
Third-Party Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the following motions: CMH Homes, Inc. and Vanderbilt
Mortgage and Finance, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude the Plaintiffs’ Designated Expert (ECF No. 179),
CMH Homes, Inc.’s Motion to Strike New Arguments or Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF
No. 210), Bob’s Home Services, LLC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding the
Number of Lag Bolts Used (ECF No. 234), Bob’s Home Services, LLC’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude Testimony of Russell Robb (ECF No. 235), Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Number One
(ECF No. 236), Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Number Two (ECF No. 237), Plaintiffs’ Motion in
Limine Number Three (ECF No. 238), CMH Homes, Inc. and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance,

Inc.’s Omnibus Motion in Limine (ECF No. 239), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate Settlement
Negotiations (ECF No. 244).
I.

Motions in Limine

For reasons appearing to the Court, Bob’s Home Services, LLC’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude Testimony Regarding the Number of Lag Bolts Used (ECF No. 234) and Bob’s Home
Services, LLC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Russell Robb Regarding
Adequacy of the Home Installation (ECF No. 235) are DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Not Produced During Discovery (ECF
No. 236) is GRANTED, subject to the possibility of rebuttal evidence. Plaintiffs’ Motion in
Limine to Exclude Evidence of Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 237) and Plaintiffs’ Motion in
Limine to Limit the Introduction of Evidence Regarding Settlement Negotiations (ECF No. 238)
are GRANTED. CMH and VMF’s Omnibus Motion in Limine (ECF No. 239) has been taken
under advisement.
II.

Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert

CMH and VMF’s Motion to Exclude the Plaintiffs’ Designated Expert (ECF No. 179)
argues that Plaintiffs’ expert, John M. Sadowski, a civil engineer, should not be permitted to testify
at trial. The Court DENIES the Motion.
Mr. Sadowski is a civil engineer. His report, Exhibit A to Defendants’ Motion, states that
the “purpose of this investigation was to visually review construction of the home and render an
engineering opinion on whether the manufactured home meets requirements” applicable to the
home.

His report describes the sources of information upon which he relied to offer his

conclusion that the home was improperly installed, resulting in numerous defects which have not
been corrected. Those sources include his visual inspection of the home and site, the installation

-2-

manual for this home, the observations of Plaintiffs, records of repairs and inspections by
personnel from CMH and Skyline, and certain governmental standards. His report summarizes
his findings under three categories of observed defects, i.e., those in the crawl space, in the home
itself, and in the roof. He describes certain physical, observable characteristics in each area,
compares what he found to the provisions of the installation manual, and explains how installation
of the home, and subsequent repairs, failed to meet the manufacturer’s instructions, thus violating
governmental standards. He expresses his opinion that installation mistakes, particularly in the
marriage line and pier supports, and poorly done repairs have led to numerous problems such as
cracked ceilings, gaps, and sticking doors and windows. He concludes that the home fails to meet
standards and warranties, and offers a “preliminary” estimate of what it would cost to repair the
house.
Though he admits no training or experience with regard to manufactured housing, nor
significant knowledge specifically related to manufactured housing, his qualifications as a civil
engineer, with experience in the structural design of buildings and the construction of buildings,
are sufficient. He is certainly qualified to inspect a manufactured house, review its installation
manual, and critique repair work and the current conditions of the home and site.

His

methodology was sound, his findings and observations are subject to verification, and his
conclusions are within the expertise of a civil engineer. Accordingly, the motion to exclude his
testimony is DENIED.
III.

Motion to Strike or to File Surreply

CMH moved to strike new arguments raised in Bob’s reply brief on Bob’s initial motion
for summary judgment. Bob’s motion to compel arbitration has been granted and Bob’s has been

-3-

terminated as a party in this matter. Accordingly, CMH’s Motion to Strike New Arguments or
Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 210) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IV.

Motion to Bifurcate Settlement Negotiations

The parties in this matter have had multiple opportunities to negotiate a settlement. Trial
is scheduled for January 6, 2014, leaving little time for further negotiations. Furthermore,
Defendants oppose bifurcation and contend that they do not have an incentive to negotiate in two
separate phases. For these reasons, the Court finds that bifurcated negotiations would not
encourage settlement of this matter. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate Settlement Negotiations
(ECF No. 244) is thus DENIED.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, CMH Homes, Inc. and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.’s
Motion to Exclude the Plaintiffs’ Designated Expert (ECF No. 179) is DENIED. CMH Homes,
Inc.’s Motion to Strike New Arguments or Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 210) is
DENIED AS MOOT. Bob’s Home Services, LLC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony
Regarding the Number of Lag Bolts Used (ECF No. 234) and Bob’s Home Services, LLC’s
Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Russell Robb (ECF No. 235) are DENIED AS
MOOT. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Number One (ECF No. 236), Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine
Number Two (ECF No. 237), and Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Number Three (ECF No. 238) are
GRANTED. CMH Homes, Inc. and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.’s Omnibus Motion
in Limine (ECF No. 239) has been taken under advisement. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate
Settlement Negotiations (ECF No. 244) is DENIED.

-4-

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion and Order to counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

-5-

December 22, 2014