Ferguson et al v. CMS Technology et al, No. 5:2020cv05053 - Document 80 (W.D. Ark. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Denying 40 Motion for Summary Judgment and 53 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (See Order for Specifics). Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on June 22, 2021. (lgd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ferguson et al v. CMS Technology et al Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION JOEL FERGUSON, et al. v. PLAINTIFFS No. 5:20-CV-05053 CMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendants’ motion (Doc. 40) for summary judgment, brief (Doc. 41) and statement of facts (Doc. 42) in support, Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 65) and brief (Doc. 66) in opposition to that motion, and Defendants’ reply (Doc. 72), brief (Doc. 73), and additional statement of facts (Doc. 74) in support of summary judgment. Also before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 53) for partial summary judgment, brief (Doc. 54) and statement of facts (Doc. 55) in support, Defendants’ response (Doc. 69), brief (Doc. 70), and statement of facts (Doc. 71) in opposition, and Plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. 76) and brief (Doc. 77) in support. Several issues of material fact remain outstanding. In particular, the factual circumstances surrounding the control and maintenance of the paracetic acid transfer hose involved in Plaintiffs’ injuries, and whether the use of that hose by Plaintiffs was at Defendants’ direction, must be determined by a jury. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions (Docs. 40 and 53) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2021. /s/P. K. Holmes, P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
