Hopkins v. MWR Management Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | 15 CVS 697 |
| Citation | 2017 NCBC 90 |
| Court | Superior Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | BRANDON HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. MWR MANAGEMENT COMPANY d/b/a MICHAEL WALTRIP RACING and TY NORRIS, Defendants. |
1. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon (i) Defendants MWR Management Company d/b/a Michael Waltrip Racing ("MWR") and Ty Norris's ("Norris " collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Brandon Hopkins's ("Plaintiff" or "Hopkins") alleged damages ("Summary Judgment Motion on Damages") and (ii) Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Introduction of Certain of Plaintiff's Alleged Damages ("Damages Motion in Limine") and Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witness and Reports (the "Expert Motion in Limine, " collectively the "Motions in Limine") in the above-captioned case. Having considered the Summary Judgment Motion on Damages and the Motions in Limine (collectively the "Motions"), the briefs and appropriate evidence in support of and in opposition to each of the Motions, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on November 3 2016 and at a hearing on the Motions in Limine on September 6, 2017, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part each of the Motions as set forth below.
Van Kampen Law, PC, by Joshua R. Van Kampen, Sean F. Herrmann and Kevin P. Murphy, for Plaintiff Brandon Hopkins.
James McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Jon P. Carroll and Adam L. Ross, for Defendants MWR Management Company and Ty Norris.
2. This case is currently scheduled for trial commencing on December 4, 2017.
3. The factual and procedural background of this case is recited in detail in Hopkins v. MWR Mgmt. Co., 2017 NCBC LEXIS 47 (). The alleged facts and procedural history pertinent to the resolution of the present Motions are set forth below.
4. On November 10, 2015, Hopkins filed his Second Amended Complaint against Defendants alleging, among other things, claims for defamation, tortious interference with contract, wrongful discharge, and statutory violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq., Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and North Carolina Retaliatory Discrimination Act ("REDA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240 et seq. Defendants answered by denying all liability and asserting various affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
5. After the completion of discovery, Plaintiff and Defendants separately moved for summary judgment on September 1, 2016, each side seeking the dismissal of all claims brought by the other (the "Cross-Motions"). In addition, Defendants moved the Court in their Motion for Summary Judgment to limit Plaintiff's recoverable damages, if any, should the Court permit any of Plaintiff's claims to survive Rule 56 dismissal. Defendants specifically contended that Plaintiff had failed to establish his right to recover damages for back pay, front pay, reputational harm, emotional distress, and consequential damages as a matter of North Carolina law. The Court held a hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on November 3, 2016.
6. On May 31, 2017, the Court ruled on the Cross-Motions, granting in part and denying in part each summary judgment motion. See generally, Hopkins, 2017 NCBC LEXIS 47. Because the parties had engaged in limited briefing and argument concerning the sustainability of Plaintiff's damages claims, however, the Court deferred its summary judgment ruling on most of Plaintiff's damages claims until the motion in limine stage of this litigation to "permit additional briefing and argument." Id. at *56. The Court did so in anticipation that Defendants' forecasted Damages Motion in Limine would raise many of the same legal arguments concerning Plaintiff's right to recover damages as were before the Court on summary judgment. Id. at *55-56. The Court did not invite further evidentiary submissions on the Cross-Motions.
7. On August 1, 2017, Defendants filed the Damages Motion in Limine. The motion largely reprises the legal arguments Defendants advanced on summary judgment, contending that most of Plaintiffs claimed damages are not legally recoverable in this case as a matter of law. On August 4, 2017, Defendants filed the Expert Motion in Limine, which seeks to exclude Plaintiffs expert witness, Dr. Gary Albrecht, from testifying or presenting his report at trial.
8. Hopkins contends that he is entitled to offer evidence of, and recover, the following damages based on his remaining claims in this action:
(Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Damages Mot. Lim. 4, ECF No. 128.)
9. To help calculate some of these damages, Plaintiffs counsel retained Dr. Albrecht, who holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Indiana University. (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Expert Mot. Lim. Ex. D, Dr. Gary Albrecht Vitae, ECF No. 129.) Dr. Albrecht prepared a damages report on December 16, 2015, which he updated on three separate occasions, the last on August 8, 2017. Dr. Albrecht's reports purport to calculate Plaintiff's "diminished earnings" over a seventeen-year period, from age twenty-eight to age forty-five, as a result of his termination. (Albrecht Report 8/8/2017, at 2.)
10. The Court held a hearing on Defendants' Motions in Limine on September 6, 2017, at which all parties were represented by counsel.
11. The Motions are now ripe for resolution.
12. Summary judgment is proper only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is genuine if it is "supported by substantial evidence, " and "an issue is material if the facts alleged would constitute a legal defense, or would affect the result of the action, or if its resolution would prevent the party against whom it is resolved from prevailing in the action." DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681, 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002).
13. "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and means more than a scintilla or a permissible inference." Id. (Citations omitted). The Court views the evidence presented "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Day v. Rasmussen, 177 N.C.App. 759, 762, 629 S.E.2d 912, 914 (2006). However, affidavits must "set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify." N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
14. The moving party "bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pennington, 356 N.C. 571, 579, 573 S.E.2d 118, 124 (2002). "[O]nce the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial." Gaunt v. Pittaway, 139 N.C.App. 778, 784-85, 534 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2000). The nonmoving party, in his response, N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
15. For purposes of resolving Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion on Damages, the Court considers only the evidence of record before the Court on the Cross-Motions and, in particular, does not consider later filed evidence tendered by either party in connection with the Motions in Limine. The Court deferred its summary judgment ruling on damages solely to permit the Court to have the benefit of the parties' further briefing and oral argument concerning Plaintiff's right to recover the challenged damages as a matter of North Carolina law. The Court did not seek or permit the presentation of additional evidence in support of or in opposition to the Cross-Motions.
16. "A motion in limine seeks pretrial determination of the admissibility of evidence proposed to be introduced at trial[.]" Hamilton v. Thomasville Med. Assocs., 187 N.C.App. 789, 792, 654 S.E.2d 708, 710 (2007). The Court has "wide discretion in making this advance ruling, " and that ruling is "subject to modification during the course of the trial." Id.
17. Except as noted below, for purposes of resolving the Motions in Limine, the Court considers the evidence advanced and forecast by each party in connection with those Motions which includes, but is not limited to, evidence relied upon by the parties in connection with the Cross-Motions. The Court will strike and not consider, however, the affidavits of Ashley Storm and Joel Delph, each of which was tendered by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendants' Damages Motion in Limine. (See Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n...
To continue reading
Request your trial