Hananburgh v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Hananburgh v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Hananburgh v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff:	Robert Hananburgh
Defendant:	Metro-North Commuter Railroad
Case Number:	1:2013cv02799
Filed:	April 26, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Dutchess
Presiding Judge:	Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit:	Federal Employer's Liability
Cause of Action:	45 U.S.C. § 51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 18, 2015	Filing 44 OPINION AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment and to preclude Raymond A. Duffany filed by Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 27 MOTION to Preclude Defendants Alleged Expert and Fact Witnesses filed by Robert Ha nanburgh: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motions to preclude Plaintiff's expert witness and for summary judgment are DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion to preclude Defendant's expert witnesses is GRANTED. Within thirt y days of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a Joint Pretrial Order prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). The parties shall also fol low Paragraph 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, which identifies submissions that must be made at or before the time of the Joint Pretrial Order, including any motions in limine. By the same date, each party shall submit pre trial memoranda, not to exceed fifteen pages, addressing the questions raised above, namely (1) whether and to what extent Metro-North's adherence (or lack thereof) to its own internal rules and policies is relevant and admissible; and (2) whether and to what extent the adequacy of Metro-North's post-accident investigation into Plaintiff's fall and its surrounding circumstances is relevant and admissible. If this action is to be tried before a jury, joint requests to ch arge, joint proposed verdict forms, and joint proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. Jury instructions may not be submitted a fter the Joint Pretrial Order due date, unless they meet the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(a)(2)(A). If this action is to be tried to the Court, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, the parties shall be ready for trial two weeks after the Joint Pretrial Order is filed. Finally, if the parties are interested in another settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Peck, they shall so advise the Court by joint letter as soon as possible. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 27 and 31. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/18/2015) (tn)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 18, 2015

Filing 44 OPINION AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment and to preclude Raymond A. Duffany filed by Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 27 MOTION to Preclude Defendants Alleged Expert and Fact Witnesses filed by Robert Ha nanburgh: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motions to preclude Plaintiff's expert witness and for summary judgment are DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion to preclude Defendant's expert witnesses is GRANTED. Within thirt y days of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a Joint Pretrial Order prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). The parties shall also fol low Paragraph 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, which identifies submissions that must be made at or before the time of the Joint Pretrial Order, including any motions in limine. By the same date, each party shall submit pre trial memoranda, not to exceed fifteen pages, addressing the questions raised above, namely (1) whether and to what extent Metro-North's adherence (or lack thereof) to its own internal rules and policies is relevant and admissible; and (2) whether and to what extent the adequacy of Metro-North's post-accident investigation into Plaintiff's fall and its surrounding circumstances is relevant and admissible. If this action is to be tried before a jury, joint requests to ch arge, joint proposed verdict forms, and joint proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. Jury instructions may not be submitted a fter the Joint Pretrial Order due date, unless they meet the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(a)(2)(A). If this action is to be tried to the Court, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, the parties shall be ready for trial two weeks after the Joint Pretrial Order is filed. Finally, if the parties are interested in another settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Peck, they shall so advise the Court by joint letter as soon as possible. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 27 and 31. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/18/2015) (tn)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hananburgh v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Hananburgh
Represented By:	Steven Lawrence Kantor
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Metro-North Commuter Railroad
Represented By:	Jose Rafael Rios
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?