Estrada v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 20-cv-00375-REB-SKC
• Parties: EDUARDO ESTRADA, individually and as the successor of ANGELINA ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

EDUARDO ESTRADA, individually and as the successor of ANGELINA ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00375-REB-SKC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

June 28, 2021

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Blackburn, J.

The matter before is Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#29],¹ filed September 22, 2020. I grant the motion.

I. JURISDICTION

I have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if the issue could be resolved in favor of either party.Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10^th Cir. 1994). A fact is "material" if it might reasonably affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Farthing, 39 F.3d at 1134.

A movant who will bear the burden of proof at trial on an issue must submit evidence to establish every essential element of its claim or affirmative defense. See In re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 209 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1111 (D. Colo. 2002). Once the motion has been properly supported, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show, by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence, that summary judgment is not proper. Id. at 1518. All the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10^th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 53 (1999).

III. ANALYSIS

On July 1, 2017, quondam defendant, Jacob Eisenberg, an employee of defendant, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta"), while traveling northbound on Weld County Road 33, in Weld County, Colorado, failed to stop at an intersection and collided with a car driven by plaintiff, Eduardo Estrada. Mr. Estrada and his wife, Angelina, who was a passenger in the car, were injured as a result.

The Estradas filed suit in Larimer County District Court in June 2019, alleging claims of negligence and negligence per se against Mr. Eisenberg and vicarious liabilityagainst Martin Marietta. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Estrada were over age 70, they requested a preferential trial date, see §13-1-129(2), C.R.S., and the case was set for trial in February 2020.²

In preparation for the trial, the parties prepared and the state court entered a Trial Management Order in accordance with Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). Therein, under the heading "Defendants' Defenses," the Order provides:

Defendants acknowledge that Mr. Eisenberg was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident at issue. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("MM") further admits that it is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its employee Mr. Eisenberg at the time of the accident. Mr. Eisenberg admits that he is at fault for the accident.

(Motion App., Exh. 1 at 2 ¶ I.1.B.) Relatedly, the parties stipulated to the following facts:

1. The Defendant Jacob Eisenberg is at fault for the subject motor vehicle collision

2. The Defendant Jacob Eisenberg was employed by and within the course and scope of his employment [with] Defendant Martin Marietta Materials at the time of the subject motor vehicle collision

3. Plaintiff Mr. Estrada had $5,619.47 in past medical bills that were caused by the subject collision. These bills were reasonable and necessary to treat his collision related injuries.

4. Mrs. Estrada had $56,922.46 in past medical bills that were caused by the subject collision. These bills were reasonable and necessary to treat her collision related injuries.

(Id., Exh. 1 at 3 ¶ II.1-4.) Based on these stipulations, the parties represented that "[t]here are only a few issues remaining for the Court to determine. First, the jury must decide whether to award damages to Mr. Estrada on his claim for past and future pain and suffering. Second, the jury must decide whether to award damages to Mr. Estrada on his claim for past and future physical impairment." (Id., Exh. 1 at 2 ¶ I.1.B.)

Less than a week prior to the entry of this order, and less than a month prior to the then-extant trial date, Martin Marietta filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, a motion to stay the case against it, arguing that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Ferrer v. Okbamicael, 390 P.3d 836 (Colo. 2017), evidenced a "clear policy preventing claims against an employer that has admitted the prerequisites for vicarious liability." (Motion for Summary Judgment or Stay of Claims Against Defendant Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. at 2 [#1-31].)³ In an apparent attempt to avoid having to address Martin Marietta's arguments as he was preparing for trial, on January 30, 2020, Mr. Estrada filed a motion to dismiss his claims against Mr. Eisenberg with prejudice. Noting the stipulations admitted Mr. Eisenberg's fault in the accident, Mr. Estrada stated he moved to dismiss Mr. Eisenberg "with the understanding that Plaintiff can proceed against [Martin Marietta] as the admittedly responsible party for damages caused by their employee Defendant Eisenberg." (Plaintiff's Opposed Motion To Dismiss Defendant Jacob Eisenberg withPrejudice at 1 [#1-42].) Martin Marietta stated it had no opposition to the dismissal of the claims against Mr. Eisenberg. (Response to Motion To Dismiss All Claims Against Defendant Jacob Eisenberg ¶¶ 1-2 at 1-2 [#1-46].)

Thus, on February 6, 2020, the state court granted Mr. Estrada's motion to dismiss with prejudice the claims against Mr. Eisenberg and denied Martin Marietta's summary judgment motion as moot. (Order Pursuant to Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Dismiss Defendant Jacob Eisenberg With Prejudice [#1-53]). However, as the dismissal of Mr. Eisenberg removed the only non-diverse defendant from the suit, Martin Marietta removed the case to this court a week later.

Mr. Estrada now claims the stipulations recited in the state court Trial Management Order constitute binding judicial admissions on the part of Martin Marietta which entitle him to summary judgment as to Martin Marietta's liability for the amount of past medical damages incurred by him and Mrs. Estrada. I agree, and thus grant his motion.

"Judicial admissions are formal, deliberate declarations which a party or his attorney makes in a judicial proceeding for the purpose of dispensing with proof of formal matters or of facts about which there is no real dispute." Asarco, LLC v. Noranda Mining, Inc., 844 F.3d 1201, 1212 n.3 (10^th Cir. 2017).⁴ Judicial admissions "have the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need forproof of the fact." Grynberg v. Bar S Services, Inc., 527 Fed. Appx. 736, 739 (10^th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, they are binding throughout the entirety of the case in which they are made. Asarco, 844 F.3d at 1212 n.3; Armstrong v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, 633 Fed. Appx. 909, 912 (10^th Cir. 2015).

Much like a final pretrial order in this court, a Trial Management Order is a formal pleading which, once entered, "shall control the subsequent course of the trial" and may be modified only where it is demonstrated "that the modification or divergence could not with reasonable diligence have been anticipated." C.R.C.P. 16(f)(5). See also Miller v. Brannon, 207 P.3d 923, 927-28 (Colo. App. 2009). Therein, Martin Marietta stipulated to all the essential elements of negligence on the part of its employee⁵ - that Mr. Eisenberg was at fault (i.e., that he caused the accident) and that the Estradas incurred damages as a result. See Casebolt v. Cowan, 829 P.2d 352, 356 (Colo. 1992). It stipulated further that Mr. Eisenberg was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, thus admitting its own vicarious liability for damages caused by Mr. Eisenberg's negligence. Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing & Heating, 130 P.3d 1011, 1019 (Colo. 2006). Finally, Martin Marietta agreed that themedical expenses incurred by the Estradas were both caused by the accident and reasonable and necessary. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crossgrove, 276 P.3d 562, 566 (Colo. 2012) (citing Kendall v. Hargrave, 349 P.2d 993, 994 (Colo.1960)).

Of course, a judicial admission may be withdrawn in appropriate circumstances. See Smith v. Argent Mortgage Co., 331 Fed. Appx. 549, 556 (10^th Cir. 2009) (if "the party making an ostensible judicial admission explains the error in a subsequent pleading or by amendment, the trial court must accord the explanation due weight"). Yet Martin Marietta has not even acknowledged Mr. Estrada's arguments or the putative effect of its judicial admissions, much less attempted to show that they should be withdrawn. Instead, it has countered with a convoluted and thoroughly inapt argument in which it suggests the dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Eisenberg extinguishes its own liability for his actions. See Arnold v. Colorado State Hospital, 910 P.2d 104, 107 (Colo. App.1995).

Aside from the fact that, if this were a winning argument, one might have expected to see it featured in a motion for summary judgment from Martin Marietta, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case. As the Court of Appeals later explained, "[i]n Arnold, the claims against the employee were dismissed because he was found not liable after a trial. Thus, there was no basis to hold the employer vicariously liable for the acts of the...