Bordin v. Rau
3:23-cv-00449
| D. Nev. | May 20, 2024
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Sandy Alecia Sinclair-Lewis filed a negligence action following a slip-and-fall incident at a Smith's Food & Drug store on May 25, 2019. [lines="40-41"].
  2. Sinclair-Lewis slipped on what she believed to be water while retrieving an ice cream carton from a freezer unit, resulting in several injuries. [lines="48-50"].
  3. Plaintiff's husband documented the incident with photographs showing droplets of liquid on the floor. [lines="53-57"].
  4. The plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony of defendant’s rebuttal expert, Dr. Vladimir Sinkov, and the defendant seeks to exclude testimonies from several of plaintiff’s expert witnesses. [lines="62-64"].
  5. A bench trial is scheduled for November 18, 2024. [lines="61"].

Issues

  1. Whether the opinions of defendant’s rebuttal expert, Dr. Vladimir Sinkov, should be excluded due to irrelevance or lack of new contributions to the case. [lines="174"].
  2. Whether the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness Adam Hjorth regarding the standard of care owed by the grocery store is admissible. [lines="210"].
  3. Whether plaintiff's expert witness Stan V. Smith's testimony about economic damages is admissible. [lines="246"].
  4. Whether the testimony of Dr. David E. Fish, plaintiff's primary medical expert, should be excluded due to alleged inconsistencies. [lines="281"].

Holdings

  1. The motion to exclude Dr. Sinkov's testimony is denied as it aligns with the subject matter of plaintiff’s expert and does not introduce new opinions. [lines="205"].
  2. The court denies the motion to exclude Adam Hjorth’s testimony, finding it relevant to assess the slip resistance of the flooring. [lines="240"].
  3. The court permits Stan V. Smith's testimony, limiting it from addressing damages related to the plaintiff’s husband, affirming some of his economic analysis assumptions are reasonable. [lines="275-276"].
  4. The court denies the motion to exclude Dr. Fish's testimony, confirming it is relevant and assists the understanding of the plaintiff's medical conditions. [lines="333"].

OPINION

Case Information

*1 Case 3:23-cv-00449-CLB Document 39 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * * Case No. 3:23-CV-00449-CLB RICHARD BORDIN, ORDER Plaintiffs, v.

JON RAU, et. al. ,

Defendants.

This matter is referred to the Court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should continue on appeal. (ECF No. 38.) This Court certifies that any IFP appeal from its order of dismissal would be frivolous or would not be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman v. Martin Jaska, Inc. , 752 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A frivolous appeal [under Rule 38] is defined as one in which the result is obvious, or where the appellants' claims are utterly meritless.”); Hooker v. American Airlines , 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of IFP status is appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP status should be revoked on appeal. May 20, 2024

DATE: _________________.

______________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE