Gamboa et al v. Centrifugal Casting Machine Company, No. 4:2014cv01273 - Document 36 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 27 MOTION for Continuance of Submission date of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 33 MOTION for Leave to File Reply To Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment , GRANTING 18 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time Expert Deadlines, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 30 MOTION for Protective Order, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 25 Agreed MOTION for Extension of Time Submission Date of Defendant Centrifugal Casting Machine Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gamboa et al v. Centrifugal Casting Machine Company Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HECTOR & EUGENIA GAMBOA , Plaintiffs, v. CENTRIFUGAL CASTING MACHINE CO ., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION H-14-1273 M EMORANDUM O PINION & O RDER Pending before this court are several motions: 1) defendant’s repleading of its motion for leave to designate responsible third parties and request for spoliation of evidence sanctions against the responsible third parties (Dkt. 16); 2) plaintiffs’ motion for extension of expert deadlines (Dkt. 18); 3) defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 24); 4) plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to extend deadlines (Dkt. 25) relating to motion for summary judgment responses; 5) plaintiffs’ motion for continuance of the submission date (Dkt. 27) for the defendant’s motion for summary judgment; 6) plaintiffs’ motion for protective order (Dkt. 30); and 7) defendant’s motion for leave to file excess pages (Dkt. 33) in its reply to the motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s repleading of its motion for leave to designate Bearings Plus, Inc. and Waukesha Bearings Corporation as responsible third parties is unopposed, and is therefore GRANTED. Defendant’s request for spoliation of evidence sanctions against the responsible third parties is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE until more evidence has been developed, or in the case of the jury instruction request, until the court considers jury instructions as a whole. Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of expert deadlines is GRANTED. Dockets.Justia.com As to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs concede that they have no evidence to support their manufacturing defect claim (Dkt. 26 at 5). Therefore, the court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of defendant on the manufacturing defect claim. However, the remainder of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, because plaintiff’s expert reports have been deemed timely. Further, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the remaining motions as moot (Dkts. 25, 27, 30, 33), because they relate to defendant’s motion for summary judgment which has been denied. The court ORDERS that parties submit a revised docket control order within 20 days. It is so ORDERED. Signed at Houston, Texas on January 21, 2015. ___________________________________ Gray H. Miller United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
