 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arnoux v. JTL Group3/6/2001
On January 26, 1999, JTL filed a motion to dismiss both complaints with prejudice. A hearing was set for February 16, 1999. Just minutes before the start of this hearing, Arnoux's attorney hand-delivered a response to JTL's motion. Arnoux also presented what purported to be answers to JTL's written discovery. The District Court ordered the parties to discuss the discovery issues and return later that afternoon. Upon return, the attorneys and the District Court discussed the inadequacy of Arnoux's discovery responses. No updated medical records were provided, nor were there any records from newly identified doctors. The District Court granted Arnoux 45 days to correct these deficiencies and satisfactorily answer the discovery.
After the 45 days had passed, JTL's attorney filed an affidavit setting forth the numerous deficiencies in the plaintiff's discovery responses. Arnoux subsequently updated her responses. On April 8, the court held a telephone status conference. The District Court and counsel discussed Arnoux's newest discovery responses, which did for the first time provide the names of Arnoux's proposed expert witnesses, but which did not contain Rule 26(b)(4) disclosures. (According to the court's scheduling order, the names of the experts and the disclosures were to be filed on or before October 15, 1998.) At the conclusion of the telephone conference, the District Court issued an order setting a pretrial conference for May 6, 1999. The District Court told JTL it could refine its motion to dismiss in light of what had and had not been supplied in the latest discovery responses.
Subsequently, JTL received a purported supplemental discovery response in both cases consisting of six pages of difficult to read handwritten notes from Dr. Julia Purvis. However, Arnoux made no attempt to reconvene mediation, nor did she ever submit an exhibit list as required by the scheduling order or answer JTL's request for statement of damages.
At the May 6, 1999 pretrial conference, the District Court was advised for the first time that Arnoux's attorney was experiencing medical problems. The District Court reached Arnoux's attorney by telephone in his hospital bed, where he was recovering from a toe amputation brought on by complications from diabetes. Arnoux's attorney moved to reset the pretrial conference, and a new pretrial conference was set for July 2, 1999. On June 21, 1999, Arnoux filed a motion to vacate the pretrial conference for at least sixty days more because her attorney would be hospitalized for a period of six weeks. The District Court reset the pretrial conference for September 24, 1999.
The pretrial conference was continued once more because the case had not been mediated. No mention of Arnoux's attorney's health was made in the District Court's order of September 22, 1999, which reset the pretrial conference for October 22, 1999. Mediation took place without success on October 13, 1999, and the pretrial conference and hearing on JTL's motion to dismiss was finally held on October 22, 1999. Arnoux did not file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On June 19, 2000, the District Court issued its order dismissing both of Arnoux's complaints with prejudice.
ISSUE 1
Should most of Arnoux's statement of facts, exhibits and arguments be stricken and not considered on this appeal?
JTL asks us to strike virtually all of Arnoux's Statement of Facts, claiming they are conclusory allegations that are completely unsupported by the record. JTL also argues that Exhibit B from Arnoux's brief must be stricken as totally irrelevant and inappropriate. JTL maintains that much of Arnoux's argument misses th
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|