Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Glass v. Crimmins Transfer Co.

Glass v. Crimmins Transfer Co.

United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

January 13, 2004, Decided

Case No. 01-4096

Opinion

 [*881] ORDER

The parties have consented to have this case heard to judgment by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), [**2]  and the District Judge has referred the case to me. Now before the court are three motions for summary judgment one by each defendant, as well as a motion to strike the defendants" reply briefs. The motions are fully briefed and the court has carefully considered the matters discussed therein. For the following reasons, two of the motions for summary judgment are allowed and one motion for summary judgment is allowed in part and denied in part. The motion to strike is denied.

MOTION TO STRIKE

In the motion to strike, plaintiffs argue that the reply briefs were untimely. Plaintiffs fail to take into account the exclusion of weekends and other non-business days in calculating the date on which the reply briefs were due. In addition, the Local Rules of this court do solicit reply briefs as part of the briefing schedule in summary judgment motions. There is a purpose for the reply brief, especially in cases such as this one that present rather novel issues of law, replies assist the court in ruling on motions based on the merits. In a hotly disputed case such as this one, the 10 days would, in all likelihood, have been extended by a day or two had the replies actually been [**3]  late. I see no prejudice to the plaintiffs and the delay in this situation has caused no difficulty for the court. For both of those reasons, the motion to strike is denied.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS GENERALLY

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

299 F. Supp. 2d 878 *; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 662 **

Milo Glass and Jerolene Glass, Plaintiffs v. Crimmins Transfer Company, United Van Lines, and Quad City Moving Co., Defendants

Disposition:  [**1]  Defendants' motions for summary judgment allowed in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' Motion to strike denied. Defendants' motion to exclude granted in part and denied in part.

CORE TERMS

carrier, damages, preempted, shipper, summary judgment motion, emotional distress, transportation, counts, federal common law, Carmack Amendment, successor, plaintiffs', causation, remedies, successor liability, personal injury, state law claim, bill of lading, special damage, preemption, notice, stored, motion to strike, summary judgment, interstate, non-moving, shipment, genuine, property damage, moving party

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Evidentiary Considerations, Motions for Summary Judgment, General Overview, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Genuine Disputes, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Evidentiary Considerations, Scintilla Rule, Opposing Materials, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Need for Trial, Supporting Materials, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Federal Questions, Transportation Law, Carrier Duties & Liabilities, Bills of Lading, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Admiralty & Maritime Law, Shipping, Bills of Lading, Stipulations, Damages, Business & Corporate Compliance, Transportation Law, Commercial Vehicles, Rates & Tariffs, Rail Transportation, Carmack Amendment, Governments, Courts, Common Law, Preliminary Considerations, Federal & State Interrelationships, Federal Common Law, Preemption, Interstate Commerce, Federal Preemption, State Powers, Torts, Types of Negligence Actions, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Procedural Matters, Preemption, Contracts Law, Breach, Types of Damages, Compensatory Damages, Consequential Damages, Measurement of Damages, Foreseeable Damages, Property Damages, Evidence, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Healthcare Law, Medical Treatment, Mergers & Acquisitions Law, General Business Considerations, Vicarious Liability, Corporations, Predecessor & Successor Corporations, Liabilities & Rights of Successors