FERRELL v. BGF GLOBAL, LLC

Case No. CIV-15-404-D.

TRUDY FERRELL, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF GREGORY FERRELL, deceased, Plaintiff, v. BGF GLOBAL, LLC, Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Personal Injury
Nature of Suit: 350 Motor Vehicle
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Trudy Ferrell, Plaintiff, represented by Andy J. Campbell , Maples Nix & Diesselhorst.

Trudy Ferrell, Plaintiff, represented by Glendell D. Nix , Maples Nix & Diesselhorst, L. Ray Maples, II , Maples & Associates, Nicole R. Snapp-Holloway , Maples Nix & Diesselhorst, Andy J. Campbell , Maples Nix & Diesselhorst, Glendell D. Nix , Maples Nix & Diesselhorst, L. Ray Maples, II , Maples & Associates & Nicole R. Snapp-Holloway , Maples Nix & Diesselhorst.

BGF Global LLC, Defendant, represented by David C. Senger , Coffey Gudgel & McDaniel PLLC, David M. Von Hartitzsch , Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC, Harry A. Parrish , Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC & Robert P. Coffey, Jr. , Coffey Gudgel & McDaniel PLLC.

Lawrance Dildine, Defendant, represented by David C. Senger , Coffey Gudgel & McDaniel PLLC, David M. Von Hartitzsch , Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC, Harry A. Parrish , Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC & Robert P. Coffey, Jr. , Coffey Gudgel & McDaniel PLLC.


ORDER

TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, District Judge.

On November, 2, 2014, Plaintiff's husband was killed in a traffic accident with a tractor trailer truck driven by Defendant Lawrance Dildine. Plaintiff brought the present action against Dildine, his employer, Defendant BGF Global, LLC, and other defendants, alleging Dildine was negligent and acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Plaintiff also alleged BGF was independently liable under the theories of negligent hiring, training, re-training, supervision, retention, and entrustment.

On November 11, 2015, BGF moved for summary judgment, alleging that pursuant to the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Jordan v. Cates, 1997 OK 9, 935 P.2d 289, it bore no separate and independent liability to Plaintiff since it conceded Dildine was its employee and acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The Court granted BGF's Motion, concluding that under the weight of relevant authority considering the issue, Plaintiff's claims of negligent hiring, training, re-training, supervision, retention, and entrustment should be dismissed as a matter of law. See Ferrell v. BGF Global, LLC, No. CIV-15-404-D, 2016 WL 4402050, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2016).1

On May 8, 2017, Dildine and BGF filed a subsequent Motion for Partial Summary Judgment With Respect to Certain Damages [Doc. No. 103]. Plaintiff has moved to strike this Motion on the grounds it violates LCvR 56.1(a), which states that "[a]bsent leave of court, each party may file only one motion [for summary judgment] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56." (emphasis added).

The Court finds Plaintiff's Motion should be denied. Although the rule, on its face, operates to prohibit BGF from filing a successive motion for summary judgment without leave of Court, Dildine was not part of BGF's first motion and the issue presented in BGF's motion — the availability of independent claims for negligence against an employer who admitted respondeat superior liability — had no effect on his respective liability. Moreover, the Court finds that striking the present motion under these circumstances would be antithetical to the purpose of summary judgment, which is to narrow the issues for trial. See Burnette v. Dow Chemical Co., 849 F.2d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 1988) (noting that summary judgment "is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed `to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'") (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986)).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 106] is DENIED as set forth herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the Court to rescind its decision in light of an alleged intervening change in controlling law [Doc. No. 94].

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases