Date: 04-17-2024

Case Style:

Chauncey Hopkins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Case Number: CT-2657-21

Judge: Mary L. Wagner

Court: Circuit Court, Shelby County, Tennessee

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Memphis Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Robert A. Cox and Ronna D. Kinsella

Description:

Memphis, Tennessee personal injury truck wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff/Appellant Chauncey Hopkins ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint for damages against Defendant Bernard Moore and Defendant/Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS" or "Defendant") in the Shelby County Circuit Court ("the trial court"). Therein, Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in an automobile accident with a UPS truck driven by Mr. Moore in the course and scope of Mr. Moore's employment with UPS. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Moore "abruptly slowed down to make a right turn into a private drive for a UPS facility"; "was using his cell phone at the time and failed to use his turning signal prior to making the right turn"; and "swerved his vehicle to the left, crossing at least partially into the left lane, then veered back through the right lane as he attempted to turn into the UPS facility." Mr. Moore's negligence, Plaintiff submitted, caused Plaintiff to rear-end the UPS truck, as Plaintiff "did not have an opportunity to avoid the collision[.]" Plaintiff raised claims for negligence; negligence per se; negligent hiring, training, supervision, and entrustment; and vicarious liability. According to Plaintiff, as a result of the collision, he suffered serious physical injuries, resulting in medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering totaling $1,000,000.00.

UPS filed an answer on December 27, 2021. Mr. Moore, however, was not promptly served with the complaint. So UPS moved for a show cause order explaining why Plaintiff intentionally delayed service on Mr. Moore, and for an order dismissing the case in its entirety as time-barred.

In December 2021, UPS sent its first written discovery requests to Plaintiff. Of note to this appeal, UPS's interrogatories asked Plaintiff to provide specific information concerning his experts, including "a full and current copy of the curriculum vitae of any expert You intend to call at the trial of this matter." The interrogatory warned that if Plaintiff failed to comply, UPS would object to Plaintiff offering expert testimony in the future. Plaintiff eventually responded to UPS's requests on February 22, 2022, indicating that he had "not decided on which, if any, expert witnesses may be called at trial[.]" Plaintiff therefore reserved the right to supplement his response.

On April 18, 2022, UPS filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff and filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery, related to what UPS deemed Plaintiff's deficient discovery responses. UPS also asked that its requests for admission be deemed admitted.

On June 21, 2022, the trial court entered an order adjudicating several of UPS's requests. Specifically, the trial court (1) denied UPS's motion to dismiss; (2) granted UPS's motion to deem admitted several requests for admission; (3) granted UPS's motion to compel as to a number of interrogatories; and (4) denied, without prejudice, UPS's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. On the same day, the parties entered into an agreed scheduling order, which provided that Plaintiff's expert disclosures were due on October 7, 2022; this date was later extended to October 24, 2022 by apparent agreement of the parties.

Plaintiff was thereafter permitted to amend his complaint; the amended complaint named only UPS as a defendant. UPS answered the amended complaint and filed a motion to dismiss and to strike portions of the amended complaint.

On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed supplemental responses to UPS's interrogatories. Relevant to the question regarding experts, Plaintiff disclosed four experts: Apurva Rashmikant Dalal, M.D., a causation expert; David R. Strauser, Ph.D., a vocational expert; Robert Vance, C.P.A., a lost earning capacity expert; and Jason Walton, an accident reconstructionist. Plaintiff described generally what each expert would testify to, explained the vague grounds for each expert's opinion, and then stated that each expert's "qualifications and CV will be provided." Plaintiff also stated that a list of past cases each expert was involved with would be provided and that an expert report would be provided.

On November 3, 2022, UPS filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's "purported 'expert disclosures,'" based on Plaintiff's deficient and untimely disclosures. Plaintiff responded in opposition on November 14, 2022, admitting that his responses were "incomplete in that the Plaintiff had not received the latest copies of the CV's, case lists or any report of its experts," Plaintiff argued that he "provided ample information to allow the Defendant to identify the identity of the experts and the general areas of expertise which they were intended to testify."

UPS filed a reply to Plaintiff's response on November 16, 2022, ostensibly to inform the trial court of "several events [that] have transpired" since it filed its initial motion to strike. Therein, UPS noted that in addition to the deficient expert disclosures, Plaintiff allegedly refused to provide available dates for UPS to depose Plaintiff. UPS further asserted that on November 8, 2022, after the expert disclosure deadline, Plaintiff did provide UPS with CVs and "case lists" for his experts, but UPS asserted that other required information was still not disclosed and the case lists were insufficient. For example, Plaintiff failed to identify a single case that Dr. Dalal had previously testified in within the last four years. Plaintiff then updated his disclosures once again on November 9, 2022, to disclose the total compensation paid to each expert. Finally, on November 14, 2022, Plaintiff produced an expert report from Dr. Dalal, but the report, according to UPS, failed to identify the specific documents he relied upon. And the report indicated that Plaintiff did not appear for the medical examination until November 2, 2022, after the expert disclosure deadline. Because of the late and still deficient expert disclosures, UPS asked that the entire action be involuntarily dismissed.

On November 17, 2022, UPS filed a motion for summary judgment and a statement of undisputed material facts. In its motion, UPS recited the issues that it had experienced in discovery with Plaintiff and the fact that Plaintiff had not requested an extension of time for additional discovery. UPS therefore argued that because "there is no testimony or other form of admissible evidence presented by the Plaintiff which can be used to support his claims in this case[,]" UPS "is entitled to summary judgment in this case."[3]

Plaintiff responded to UPS's motion for summary judgment, arguing that even if the trial court struck Plaintiff's experts, "Plaintiff has an absolute right to testify in his own cause and cannot be stricken as such." Plaintiff further asserted that the only facts in the record are contained in his complaint and create triable issues as to the negligence of UPS's employee and whether the claim of negligence per se is valid. In support of his argument, Plaintiff filed a statement of alternative material facts; each of the facts was supported by a reference to the amended complaint.

On December 16, 2022, the trial court entered an order granting in part and denying in part UPS's motion to strike Plaintiff's experts. Therein, the trial court ruled that

Plaintiff has had numerous deficiencies in responding to discovery and has been granted numerous extensions and additional time to answer discovery and to comply with the Scheduling Order deadlines set by this Court. Most of those extensions, if not all of them, have been given over the Defendant's strenuous objections. The deadline for the Plaintiff to disclose his experts in this matter was extended, over Defendant's objections, to October 24, 2022. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to the October 24, 2022 deadline. The "expert disclosures" that were on file for the Plaintiff as of October 24th are the supplemental answers to interrogatories filed by the Plaintiff on October 13th. Following a review of these supplemental answers, the Court finds that the "disclosures" of Dr. Dalal, Dr. Strauser, Mr. Vance and Mr. Walton are not in compliance with Rule 26.03. The Court will therefore strike each of Plaintiff's proposed experts as they were not properly identified.

The trial court denied, however, UPS's request that the action be involuntarily dismissed in its entirety.[4]

On February 2, 2023, UPS filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion by pointing to evidence, rather than his complaint. On the same day, UPS also renewed its motion for Rule 11 sanctions, seeking attorney's fees, expenses, and other monetary sanctions. A hearing on the pending motion for summary judgment was held on February 8, 2024. Plaintiff responded in opposition to UPS's renewed motion for Rule 11 sanctions on February 24, 2023, asking that the motion be denied.

On February 28, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting UPS's motion for summary judgment. Therein, the trial court ruled that Plaintiff did not meet his burden under Rule 56.06 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure because his response to summary judgment "rest[ed] on his mere allegations as contained within his Complaint." In light of Plaintiff's failure to deny any of UPS's proffered material facts or submit facts of his own, the trial court ruled that UPS "demonstrated that the Plaintiff cannot prove any of the essential elements of his claim, namely duty, breach of duty, causation or damages, and therefore the Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgement as a matter of law." Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal to this Court on March 3, 2023.
Hopkins v. United Parcel Serv., W2023-00318-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. Apr 17, 2024)

Outcome: This appeal is dismissed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for all further proceedings necessary and consistent with this Opinion. Costs of this appeal are taxed one-half to Appellant Chauncey Hopkins, and one-half to Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc., for which execution may issue if necessary.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: