Hassell v. Budd Company, 2:09-cv-90863-ER. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190408e18
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER Consolidated Under MDL 875 EDUARDO C. ROBRENO , District Judge . AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2019, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 114) is DENIED as moot; (2) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 110 & 111) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 1 (3) the Motion of Plaintiff to Exclude Supplemental Expert Report and T
Summary: ORDER Consolidated Under MDL 875 EDUARDO C. ROBRENO , District Judge . AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2019, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 114) is DENIED as moot; (2) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 110 & 111) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 1 (3) the Motion of Plaintiff to Exclude Supplemental Expert Report and Te..
More
ORDER Consolidated Under MDL 875
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2019, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 114) is DENIED as moot; (2) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 110 & 111) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;1 (3) the Motion of Plaintiff to Exclude Supplemental Expert Report and Testimony of Francis W. Weir, Ph.D. (ECF No. 113) is DENIED, with leave to refile in the transferor court after remand; and (4) Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. 107, 108, 109) are DENIED.2
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. As set forth in an memorandum filed on this day, the Court has concluded that: (1) the negligence and strict liability claims arising from insulation used in connection with pipes originating in the train's locomotive involve "locomotive equipment" and are pre-empted by the LIA; but (2) claims arising from insulation used in connection with pipes that did not originate in the train's locomotive are not "locomotive equipment" and are, therefore, not pre-empted by the LIA; (3) Plaintiff's claims arising from insulation lining that Mr. Hassell described as the "arc chutes" in the floor of the passenger railcars involve "locomotive equipment" and are pre-empted by the LIA; (4) Plaintiff's claims for loss of consortium and punitive damages — as derivative claims — are viable to the same extent as Plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims; and (5) Plaintiff's claims are not pre-empted by the SAA.
2. The Court will issue a rule to show cause why the case should not be remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas no earlier than April 22, 2019.
Source: Leagle
