Boateng v. BMW of North America, LLC et al
| Godwin Boateng |
| BMW (US) Holding Corporation, BMW Group, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, BMW of North America, Inc. and BMW of North America, LLC |
| 2:2017cv00209 |
| January 13, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Steven I. Locke |
| Leonard D. Wexler |
| Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
157
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order (M&O), the Court rules as follows on the parties' pending motions in limine:Defendants' motion to exclude evidence of "other dissimilar incidents&quo t; is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (See M&O Discussion Section I.A.2.)Defendants' motion to exclude photographs of Plaintiff's injury is DENIED. (See M&O Discussion Section I.B.2.)Defendants' motion to exclude evidence n ot produced in discovery is DENIED. (See M&O Discussion Section I.C.2.)The Court DENIES as moot Defendants' motion to exclude news media coverage in light of Plaintiff's withdrawal of the exhibits. (See M&O Discussion Section I.D.)D efendants' motion to exclude evidence of recalls unrelated to BMW's soft close door is GRANTED. (See M&O Discussion Section I.E.)Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's demonstrative videos of the Subject Vehicle is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (See M&O Discussion Section I.F.)Plaintiff's first motion in limine to exclude evidence suggesting external forces caused Plaintiff's injury is DENIED. (See M&O Discussion Section II.A.2.)Plaintiff's second motion in limine to exclude evidence of Defendants' compliance with FMVSS No. 206 is GRANTED. (See M&O Discussion Section II.B.)The parties are directed to meet and confer and incorporate the Court's rulings into their revised Joint Pretrial Order, which must be filed no later than April 12, 2024, pursuant to this Court's February 1, 2024, Scheduling Order. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 4/8/2024. (SP)
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 120 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum & order, Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiff's expert testimony is DENIED. Defendants' motions f or summary judgment are GRANTED as to Plaintiff's manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress cl aims. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are DENIED as to Plaintiff's design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as the breach of implied warranty, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and New York General Business Law claims. The parties are directed to confer and provide a joint status report within seven business days of this Order to advise the Court how they plan to proceed with this case. The parties are also directed to schedule a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Locke and report to the Court regarding the outcome within two business days thereafter. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/20/2022. (Wong, Leah)
|
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
