Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

E.H., By and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, (Por) Melody Haak v. Cedar Fair

August 24, 2011

E.H., BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, (POR) MELODY HAAK,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CEDAR FAIR, L.P., D/B/A KNOTT'S SOAK CITY, USA; RAUL REHNBORG, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AS MOOT; VACATING ORDER; AND SETTING REMAINING PRETRIAL DATES [Doc. No. 70]

Plaintiff E.H., a minor, appears by and through his mother, Melody Haak, his guardian ad litem in this Americans with Disabilities suit. During the pretrial conference, Honorable Larry A. Burns, then presiding over this action, granted the parties leave to file additional motions for summary judgment on legal questions in order to streamline the issues for trial.*fn1 Thereafter, the case was transferred to the under-signed, along with a joint motion to clarify the substance of the summary judgment motions that can be filed. The Court has reviewed Judge Burn's Order [Doc. No. 67], the joint motion [Doc. No. 70], the declarations of counsel and the record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Judge Burn's Order of July 12, 2010, [Doc. No. 67], is hereby VACATED as there is no record for this Court to review to determine why Judge Burns ordered a second round of summary judgment motions or what the scope of those motions was to be. Given the absence of a record and the parties' disagreement regarding the scope of the proposed motions, the Court sees no way to proceed under the July 12, 2010 Order.

2. The parties' joint motion, [Doc. No. 70], for clarification of Judge Burn's Order of July 12, 2010, is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

3. Counsel must comply with the Pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or beforeSeptember 9, 2011.

4. This order replaces the requirements under CivLR 16.1(f)(6)(c). No Memoranda of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed.

5. The parties shall meet and confer on or before September 9, 2011 and prepare a proposed pretrial order containing the following:

1. A statement to be read to the jury, not in excess of one page, of the nature of the case and the claims and defenses.

2. A list of the causes of action to be tried, referenced to the Complaint [and Counterclaim if applicable]. For each cause of action, the order shall succinctly list the elements of the claim, damages and any defenses. A cause of action in the Complaint [and/or Counterclaim] which is not listed shall be dismissed with prejudice. 3(a). A list, in alphabetical order, of each witness counsel actually expect to call at trial with a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the witnesses' testimony. 3(b). A list, in alphabetical order, of each expert witness counsel actually expect to call at trial with a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the expert witnesses' testimony. 3(c). A list, in alphabetical order, of additional witnesses, including experts, counsel do not expect to call at this time but reserve the right to call at trial along with a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the witnesses' testimony. 4(a). A list of all exhibits that counsel actually expect to offer at trial with a one-sentence description of the exhibit. 4(b). A list of all other exhibits that counsel do not expect to offer at this time but reserve the right to offer if necessary at trial with a one-sentence description of the exhibit.

5. A statement of all facts to which the parties stipulate. This statement shall be on a separate page and will be read to and provided to the jury.

6. A list of all deposition transcripts by page and line, or videotape depositions by section, that will be offered at trial in lieu of live testimony.

The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to work out any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order. The court will entertain any questions concerning the conduct of the trial at the pretrial conference.

6. Objections to Pre-trial disclosures must be filed no later than September 23, 2011.

7. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order as described above must be prepared, served, and lodged on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.