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.

Little v. The Budd Company

United States District Court, D. Kansas

March 19, 2019

NANCY LITTLE, individually and as personal representative of the estate of ROBERT L. RABE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BUDD COMPANY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Nancy Little filed this action individually and as the personal representative of the estate of her father, Robert L. Rabe, against defendant The Budd Company. Plaintiff alleges that her father, while working as a pipefitter for the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (“ATSF”), was exposed to asbestos-containing pipe insulation that defendant had placed in the passenger railcars it manufactured. And, she alleges, this exposure caused her father to develop asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma, causing his death on December 28, 2012.

         On December 4, 2018, the parties tried their case to a jury. After presenting evidence for about five days, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Doc. 190 at 1. The jury found defendant at fault, but apportioned only 7% of the total fault to defendant. Id. The jury apportioned the other 93% of fault to the decedent's employer-ATSF-who is not a party to this case. Id. Also, the jury awarded plaintiff $139, 500 in damages. Id. at 2. On December 14, 2018, the court entered a Judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. Doc. 191.

         This matter comes before the court on two post-trial motions-one filed by each party. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses. Doc. 197. And defendant has filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Doc. 192. For reasons explained below, the court denies both motions.

         I. Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses

         Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses asks the court to award sanctions against defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2). Plaintiff seeks $3, 726.07 from defendant for attorney's fees and expenses incurred from deposing plaintiff's expert, Dr. Victor Roggli, on January 30, 2018.

         Rule 37(c)(2) provides,

If a party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36 and if the requesting party later proves . . . the matter true, the requesting party may move that the party who failed to admit pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in making that proof. The court must so order unless:
(A) the request was held objectionable under Rule 36(a);
(B) the admission sought was of no substantial importance;
(C) the party failing to admit had a reasonable ground to believe that it might prevail on the matter; or
(D) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.

Fed. R. Civ .P. 37(c)(2). A district court has discretion to decide whether an award of attorney's fees and expenses is warranted under Rule 37(c)(2). Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1555 (10th Cir. 1996).

         Plaintiff asserts she deserves relief under Rule 37(c)(2) because defendant failed to admit certain Requests for Admission that asked defendant to make admissions about the specific causation of the decedent's mesothelioma. Later, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment in her favor on the issue whether asbestos exposure had caused the decedent to contract mesothelioma. In response to that motion, defendant didn't contest that the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma and that asbestos ...


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.