Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Sudbeck v. Sunstone Hotel Props., Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

July 26, 2006, Decided

2:04-cv-1535JWS

Opinion

PRELIMINARY ORDER

[Re: Motions at dockets 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 73, & 77]

I. NATURE OF THIS ORDER

This is a preliminary order which sets out the court's preliminary analysis of the motions described in the next section. This order does not decide any of those motions. Rather, it provides the parties with the court's current view in the hope that doing so will assist [*2]  them to focus their presentations during oral argument. This order does not authorize the filing of any more briefing on any motion. After the court hears oral argument (which will be scheduled in a separate order), it may adopt all, some or none of this preliminary order when it decides the motions.

II. MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

At docket 56, defendants Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc., Sunstone Hotel Investors, LLC, Sunstone Investors L.P., SMP II Limited Partnership, and Jeffrey and Jane Doe Hammermeister (collectively "Sunstone") moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. At docket 73 plaintiffs Gilbert and Lynn Sudbeck (collectively "Sudbeck") opposed the Sunstone motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on the issues of causation and damages.

Sunstone filed numerous motions in limine: At docket 58, it seeks to exclude the testimony of Matthew Freije; at docket 59, it asks the court to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures; at docket 60, Sunstone seeks to exclude the evidence of water testing; at docket 61, it requests exclusion of evidence relating to OSHA regulations; at docket 62, it seeks to exclude evidence of insurance or medical liens;  [*3]  at docket 63, it asks the court to exclude evidence of future medical expenses; and finally at docket 64, Sunstone asks for exclusion of evidence relating to defendants' financial condition. At docket 77, Sunstone moved to strike portions of Sudbeck's Statement of Facts. All motions are opposed and have been briefed.

The parties requested oral argument on some of the motions. In a separate order, the court will schedule telephonic oral argument on the motions at dockets 56 and 73, with permission to touch upon any of the other motions addressed in this preliminary order if counsel deem that to be necessary.

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.

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51639 *; 2006 WL 2728624

GILBERT SUDBECK and LYNN SUDBECK, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, vs. SUNSTONE HOTEL PROPERTIES, INC.; SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, LLC; SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.P.; SMP II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JEFFERY HAMMERMEISTER and JANE DOE HAMMERMEISTER, husband and wife DIVERSIFIED ENGINEERING, INC; JOHN AND JANE DOE I-X, husbands and wives; BLACK CORPORATIONS I-X; and WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-X, Defendants.

Prior History: Sapiro v. Sunstone Hotel Investors, L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21234 (D. Ariz., Apr. 4, 2006)

CORE TERMS

bacteria, Disease, Resort, contracted, motions, samples, hotel, summary judgment, testing, summary judgment motion, qualified to testify, exclude evidence, argues, undisputed, infected, guest, air, dangerous condition, incubation period, motion in limine, oral argument, parties