Kristy Rella v. Westchester BMW, Inc. et al
| Kristy Rella |
| Westchester BMW, Inc., BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft |
| 7:2016cv00916 |
| February 5, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Motor Vehicle Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
244
ORDER: Consistent with the Court's in-court instructions on July 13, 2022, by no later than Monday, July 18, 2022, Plaintiff is hereby directed to file a letter advising the Court as to how she intends to proceed with respect to her applicat ion for a default judgment against Defendant Westchester BMW, Inc. See ECF Nos. 30, 33, 34, 39, 40 & Minute Entry dated Sept. 8, 2016. It should be noted that courts in this Circuit generally disfavor entering default judgments if doing so could r esult in inconsistent outcomes for similarly situated defendants. See, e.g., El Omari v. Buchanan, No. 20-cv-2601 (VM), 2021 WL 465431, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2021); Diarama Trading Co., Inc. v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., Inc., No. 01-cv-2950 (D AB), 2002 WL 31545845, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2002); Hudson v. Universal Pictures Corp., No. 03-cv-1008 (FB) (LB), 2004 WL 1205762, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2004) ("To allow [a plaintiff] to recover a default judgment against one defenda nt when claims against similarly situated co-defendants have been found to be meritless would be unseemly and absurd, as well as unauthorized by law." (quotation marks omitted)). To the extent Plaintiff continues to seek a determination from th e Court on her pending application for a default judgment, her forthcoming submission must address the above-cited authorities, and also discuss whether such a judgment against Westchester BMW, Inc. would "present[ ] an 'incongruity' w ith the factual findings made at the [ ] trial." See Chain v. N. E. Freightways, Inc., No. 16-cv-3371 (JCM), 2020 WL 7481142, at *15-18 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2020) (where claims against appearing defendants brought under a theory of successor liability failed at trial, judgment against defaulting defendant could not stand), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5051656 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2021). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 7/14/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
235
DECISION AND ORDER terminating 214 Motion in Limine; terminating 220 Motion in Limine. For the reasons discussed on the record at the June 30, 2022 final pretrial conference, the Court issues the following rulings as to the parties' motion s in limine: Defendants' Motions in Limine 1.Defendants' motion to preclude use of medical records from Dr. Wilson that were disclosed by Plaintiff on June 6, 2022 is withdrawn, based on the Court's ruling that the parties' menta l health experts will be permitted to review these records, meet with Plaintiff, and supplement their opinions accordingly. In light of the anticipated supplemental reports, the Court reserves decision on Defendants' motion to preclude use o f the January 7, 2021 IME performed by Barbara S. Baer, Ph.D. Defendants' motion to preclude the June 5, 2022 modification of Dr. Dudley's expert opinion is denied as moot, as Plaintiff has agreed to the relief sought. As further set for th by this Order. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine 14. Plaintiff's motion to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence that the destruction of the vehicle was the result of any intentional or negligent act attributable to Plaintiff or her counsel is granted. 15. Plaintiff's motion to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence or eliciting testimony concerning animal nesting, collision history, and flooding or storm damage as potential alternative theories of causation regarding the fire is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 214 and 220. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 7/1/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
199
DECISION AND ORDER denying 197 Letter Motion for Discovery. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion filed at ECF No. 197 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 197. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 5/27/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
195
ORDER: This matter is scheduled for a jury trial in the Southern District of New York before Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause, starting on Tuesday, July 5, 2022. The trial will take place at the Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building and Co urthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, NY 10601, and is expected to take up to two weeks. To the extent that trial scheduling is still subject to the Court's COVID-19 scheduling protocols in July 2022, the Court will submit this case fo r trial beginning the week of July 5, 2022. In that event, the start date of the trial will be confirmed as promptly as possible, but only after the Clerk of the Court has assessed all courtroom needs for the weeks in question. Because the potenti al application of the COVID-19 scheduling protocols may result in a trial start date later in the week of July 5, 2022, the parties are expected to keep the week of July 18, 2022 available for trial in this matter as well. SO ORDERED. (Ready for Trial by 7/5/2022.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 11/12/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER: This case is set for trial on July 6, 2020. Due to the circumstance of the coronavirus -COVID-19 stay at home order the Court is unable to hold jury trials in the immediate future,including July, and therefore the trial is adjourned with out date. The earliest anticipated date for jury trials is expected to be in September or later. The Court does expect to be able to conduct bench trials in July and August, with the possibility of some witnesses appearing remotely by video. It is therefore ordered that counsel in this matter confer with one another as soon as reasonably possible to determine whether they would jointly consent to a bench trial. The parties should inform the Court by letter filed on ECF no later than June 1 9, 2020. If counsel do consent to a bench trial, then the undersigned must seek reassignment of such a trial to a different Magistrate Judge in White Plains, as the parties have had a settlement conference presided over by the undersigned; if coun sel do not consent to a bench trial and would like to schedule a further settlement conference, then contact the undersigned's chambers to schedule such a conference. In the event that a jury trial will go forward before the undersigned, then any in limine motions, and any required pre-trial submissions, are to be filed 21 days before the scheduled trial; opposition to any in limine motion will be due 14 days before the scheduled trial;replies will not be permitted. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 5/12/2020) (rj)
|
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 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.
