1 ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11572 2 E-mail: afulton@jfnvlaw.com LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14967 4 E-mail: logan@jfnvlaw.com JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. 5 2580 Sorrel Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 6 Telephone: (702) 979-3565 Facsimile: (702) 362-2060 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Bennett 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 JEFFREY P. BENNETT, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:20−cv−01584-GMN-DJA 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. [PROPOSED] JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DOES I-X, inclusive; and ROE 15 CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
18 Pursuant to LR 16-3(b), Plaintiff, JEFFREY P. BENNETT, by and through his 19 attorneys of record, ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. and LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. of the law 20 firm of JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD., and Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 21 by and through JASON M. FRIERSON, ESQ., United States Attorney, and SKYLER H. 22 PEARSON, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby submit this proposed Joint Pre-Trial 23 Order. 24 25 I. 26 A. Summary of the Action 27 This is an action arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident. On December 20, 1 Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) employee James Aliitaeao was operating a 2 commercial semi-truck (“Semi-Truck”) hauling an empty trailer. Plaintiff contends that the 3 Defendant’s Semi-Truck veered into Plaintiff’s lane and struck the right side of Plaintiff’s 4 RV (“Subject Accident”) causing property damage to Plaintiff’s RV and injuries to 5 Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges negligence. 6 B. Relief Sought: 7 8 As the parties stipulated and the Court ordered that this case be bifurcated into 9 liability and damages phases, the current relief sought by Plaintiff is a determination as to 10 liability. 11 C. Contentions of the Parties 12 1. Plaintiff’s Contentions: 13 Plaintiff contends that he can meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that 14 Defendant breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends that he 15 16 will also establish that Defendant’s breach of the duty of care owed to Plaintiff was the 17 proximate and legal cause of the Subject Accident. Lastly, Plaintiff contends he will be 18 able meet the burden of proof regarding his medical damages, pain and suffering, and 19 property damage that were caused by the Subject Accident. 20 2. Defendant’s Contentions: 21 Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot establish his burden of proof to show that 22 23 Defendant breached any duty of care. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff cannot 24 establish his burden of proof to show that any breach of duty by Defendant was the 25 proximate or legal cause of the accident. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff will be 26 unable establish his claimed damages. 27 1 II. 2 Statement of Jurisdiction 3 This action is brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 4 1346(b)(1), which provides that federal courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil 5 actions on claims against the United States . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal 6 injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the 7 8 Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under 9 circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant 10 in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” Venue is 11 proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and/or 1391(b)(2), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 12 1391(e)(1), because the United States of America is a named Defendant and the automobile 13 collision that is the subject in this litigation occurred in Clark County, Nevada. 14 15 III. 16 The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 17 The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff and FAA employee, James Aliitaeao, were 18 both travelling on southbound on Interstate 15 on or around the time of the Subject 19 Accident. 20 IV. 21 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by 22 23 evidence to the contrary: 24 None. 25 V. 26 The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial. 27 1. Whether Defendant’s vehicle, including its trailer, struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. 1 2. Whether Plaintiff’s vehicle struck Defendant’s vehicle, including its trailer. 2 3. Whether Plaintiff’s vehicle left its lane. 3 4. Whether Defendant’s vehicle, including its trailer, left its lane. 4 5. Whether an accident between the two vehicles occurred. 5 VI. 6 The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined at trial.1 7 8 1. Whether Defendant breach any duty owed to Plaintiff. 9 2. Whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant’s breach, if any, caused 10 Plaintiff’s damages. 11 3. Whether the United States is liable to Plaintiff. 12 4. Whether Plaintiff or any other party’s negligence contributed to the 13 accident. 14 15 VII. 16 (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be 17 so marked by the clerk: 1. SF-95 Form (Bates No.: PLT0015 – PLT0016). 18 19 2. E-mail between Plaintiff and Mr. Galacgac (January 3, 2019), Bates No. 20 US000270 – US000271. 21 3. NHP Body CAM footage, Bates No. US000473 – US000474. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25
26 1As the parties have bifurcated the liability portion of trial (ECF 21), the only contested 27 issues of law as it pertains to this Joint Pre-Trial Order relate to liability. 1 (b) As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be 2 offered objects to their admission on the grounds stated: 3 Plaintiff: Plaintiff objects to Accelerated Recovery Services, Inc.’s letter and SF-95 4 claim, Bates No. US000273 – US000301 as it contains insurance information, is hearsay, 5 cannot be authenticated, violates the best evidence rule and more prejudicial than probative 6 under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 7 8 Plaintiff further objects to Brimhall Eye Center, Medical and Billing Records, Bates 9 Nos. US006224 – US006295 as trial is bifurcated as to only liability, and not Plaintiff’s 10 medical treatment. Further, neither party has identified any witness who can attest to the 11 medical records, as they were prepared by Plaintiff’s medical providers. Moreover, Mr. 12 Bennett’s medical records are hearsay as there will be no testimony provided by any 13 designated representative of Brimhall Eye. Moreover, any probative value Mr. Bennett’s 14 Brimhall Eye medical and billing records is substantially outweighed by the danger of 15 16 unfair prejudice to Mr. Bennett regarding the condition of his eyes. 17 Plaintiff further objects to CSAA Insurance Records, Bates Nos. US001314- 18 US002559 as it contains insurance information, is hearsay, cannot be authenticated, 19 violates the best evidence rule and more prejudicial than probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 20 Plaintiff reserves the right to use any document including but not limited to 21 discovery responses and/or deposition testimony by Defendant for impeachment and/or 22 23 substantively as party admissions, as may be relevant at trial. Plaintiff reserves the right to 24 use demonstrative evidence. Plaintiff also reserves the right to use any exhibit listed or 25 introduced by Defendant or as previously produced by the parties. 26
27 1 Defendant: Defendant objects to the “Nevada Highway Patrol – Traffic Crash 2 Report (Bates No.: PLT0017 – PLT0022)” as it is hearsay and more prejudicial than 3 probative under Fed. R. Evid.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11572 2 E-mail: afulton@jfnvlaw.com LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14967 4 E-mail: logan@jfnvlaw.com JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. 5 2580 Sorrel Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 6 Telephone: (702) 979-3565 Facsimile: (702) 362-2060 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Bennett 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 JEFFREY P. BENNETT, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:20−cv−01584-GMN-DJA 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. [PROPOSED] JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DOES I-X, inclusive; and ROE 15 CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
18 Pursuant to LR 16-3(b), Plaintiff, JEFFREY P. BENNETT, by and through his 19 attorneys of record, ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. and LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. of the law 20 firm of JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD., and Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 21 by and through JASON M. FRIERSON, ESQ., United States Attorney, and SKYLER H. 22 PEARSON, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby submit this proposed Joint Pre-Trial 23 Order. 24 25 I. 26 A. Summary of the Action 27 This is an action arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident. On December 20, 1 Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) employee James Aliitaeao was operating a 2 commercial semi-truck (“Semi-Truck”) hauling an empty trailer. Plaintiff contends that the 3 Defendant’s Semi-Truck veered into Plaintiff’s lane and struck the right side of Plaintiff’s 4 RV (“Subject Accident”) causing property damage to Plaintiff’s RV and injuries to 5 Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges negligence. 6 B. Relief Sought: 7 8 As the parties stipulated and the Court ordered that this case be bifurcated into 9 liability and damages phases, the current relief sought by Plaintiff is a determination as to 10 liability. 11 C. Contentions of the Parties 12 1. Plaintiff’s Contentions: 13 Plaintiff contends that he can meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that 14 Defendant breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends that he 15 16 will also establish that Defendant’s breach of the duty of care owed to Plaintiff was the 17 proximate and legal cause of the Subject Accident. Lastly, Plaintiff contends he will be 18 able meet the burden of proof regarding his medical damages, pain and suffering, and 19 property damage that were caused by the Subject Accident. 20 2. Defendant’s Contentions: 21 Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot establish his burden of proof to show that 22 23 Defendant breached any duty of care. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff cannot 24 establish his burden of proof to show that any breach of duty by Defendant was the 25 proximate or legal cause of the accident. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff will be 26 unable establish his claimed damages. 27 1 II. 2 Statement of Jurisdiction 3 This action is brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 4 1346(b)(1), which provides that federal courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil 5 actions on claims against the United States . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal 6 injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the 7 8 Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under 9 circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant 10 in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” Venue is 11 proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and/or 1391(b)(2), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 12 1391(e)(1), because the United States of America is a named Defendant and the automobile 13 collision that is the subject in this litigation occurred in Clark County, Nevada. 14 15 III. 16 The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 17 The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff and FAA employee, James Aliitaeao, were 18 both travelling on southbound on Interstate 15 on or around the time of the Subject 19 Accident. 20 IV. 21 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by 22 23 evidence to the contrary: 24 None. 25 V. 26 The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial. 27 1. Whether Defendant’s vehicle, including its trailer, struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. 1 2. Whether Plaintiff’s vehicle struck Defendant’s vehicle, including its trailer. 2 3. Whether Plaintiff’s vehicle left its lane. 3 4. Whether Defendant’s vehicle, including its trailer, left its lane. 4 5. Whether an accident between the two vehicles occurred. 5 VI. 6 The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined at trial.1 7 8 1. Whether Defendant breach any duty owed to Plaintiff. 9 2. Whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant’s breach, if any, caused 10 Plaintiff’s damages. 11 3. Whether the United States is liable to Plaintiff. 12 4. Whether Plaintiff or any other party’s negligence contributed to the 13 accident. 14 15 VII. 16 (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be 17 so marked by the clerk: 1. SF-95 Form (Bates No.: PLT0015 – PLT0016). 18 19 2. E-mail between Plaintiff and Mr. Galacgac (January 3, 2019), Bates No. 20 US000270 – US000271. 21 3. NHP Body CAM footage, Bates No. US000473 – US000474. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25
26 1As the parties have bifurcated the liability portion of trial (ECF 21), the only contested 27 issues of law as it pertains to this Joint Pre-Trial Order relate to liability. 1 (b) As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be 2 offered objects to their admission on the grounds stated: 3 Plaintiff: Plaintiff objects to Accelerated Recovery Services, Inc.’s letter and SF-95 4 claim, Bates No. US000273 – US000301 as it contains insurance information, is hearsay, 5 cannot be authenticated, violates the best evidence rule and more prejudicial than probative 6 under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 7 8 Plaintiff further objects to Brimhall Eye Center, Medical and Billing Records, Bates 9 Nos. US006224 – US006295 as trial is bifurcated as to only liability, and not Plaintiff’s 10 medical treatment. Further, neither party has identified any witness who can attest to the 11 medical records, as they were prepared by Plaintiff’s medical providers. Moreover, Mr. 12 Bennett’s medical records are hearsay as there will be no testimony provided by any 13 designated representative of Brimhall Eye. Moreover, any probative value Mr. Bennett’s 14 Brimhall Eye medical and billing records is substantially outweighed by the danger of 15 16 unfair prejudice to Mr. Bennett regarding the condition of his eyes. 17 Plaintiff further objects to CSAA Insurance Records, Bates Nos. US001314- 18 US002559 as it contains insurance information, is hearsay, cannot be authenticated, 19 violates the best evidence rule and more prejudicial than probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 20 Plaintiff reserves the right to use any document including but not limited to 21 discovery responses and/or deposition testimony by Defendant for impeachment and/or 22 23 substantively as party admissions, as may be relevant at trial. Plaintiff reserves the right to 24 use demonstrative evidence. Plaintiff also reserves the right to use any exhibit listed or 25 introduced by Defendant or as previously produced by the parties. 26
27 1 Defendant: Defendant objects to the “Nevada Highway Patrol – Traffic Crash 2 Report (Bates No.: PLT0017 – PLT0022)” as it is hearsay and more prejudicial than 3 probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendant objects to the “Nevada Highway Patrol – 4 Call Detail Report (Bates No.: PLT0023 – PLT0029)” as it is hearsay, cannot be 5 authenticated, violates the best evidence rule and more prejudicial than probative under 6 Fed. R. Evid. 403. 7 8 Defendant objects to the “Nevada Highway Patrol – 911 Audio Call (PLT No.: 9 PLT0030)” as it is hearsay, cannot be properly authenticated, and is more prejudicial than 10 probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 11 Defendant objects to the “Property Damage Bills (Bates No.: PLT0247–PLT0256)” 12 as this case has been bifurcated and the current trial is confined to liability not damages. 13 Defendant objects to the “Color Photographs of Jeffery Bennett’s Property Damage 14 (Bates No.: PLT0257–PLT0264)” as the photographs cannot be properly authenticated, are 15 16 more prejudicial than probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403, and this case has been bifurcated 17 and the current trial is confined to liability not damages. 18 Defendant objects to the “Color Photographs of Jeffery Bennett’s injuries (Bates 19 No.: PLT0265–PLT0268)” as the photographs cannot be properly authenticated, are more 20 prejudicial than probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403, and this case has been bifurcated and 21 the current trial is confined to liability not damages. 22 23 Defendant reserves the right to use any document including but not limited to 24 discovery responses and/or deposition testimony by Plaintiff for impeachment and/or 25 substantively as party admissions, as may be relevant at trial. Defendant reserves the right 26 to use demonstrative evidence. Defendant also reserves the right to use any exhibit listed or 27 introduced by Plaintiff or as previously produced by the parties. 1 (c) A statement by each party of whether they intend to present evidence in 2 electronic format to jurors for purposes of jury deliberations2: 3 As this matter is set for a bench trial, the parties may use power point 4 images/drawings/diagrams/animations/story boards depicting the facts and circumstances 5 of the Subject Accident, information relevant to communications between the parties, 6 and/or deposition testimony. 7 8 (d) Depositions: 9 Plaintiff: None at this time, except for impeachment purposes. Plaintiff reserves the 10 right to utilize any depositions intended to be offered at trial by Defendant. 11 Defendant: None at this time, except for impeachment purposes. Defendant reserves 12 the right to utilize any depositions intended to be offered at trial by Plaintiff. 13 (e) Objections to depositions: 14 Plaintiff: None at this time. 15 16 Defendant: None at this time. 17 VIII. 18 The following witnesses may be called by the parties at trial: 19 Plaintiff: 20 1. Jeffrey P. Bennett, Plaintiff c/o Adam R. Fulton, Esq. 21 Logan G. Willson, Esq. JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. 22 2580 Sorrel Street 23 Las Vegas, NV 89146
24 2. FRCP 30(b)(6) Designee(s) of United States of America, Defendant 25 c/o Skyler H. Pearson, Esq. 26 27 2Pursuant to the October 6, 2022 Minute Order issued by the Court, the parties submit the following in complaince with LR 16-3(b)(9). 1 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 2 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 3
4 3. James Aliitaeao, Witness c/o Skyler H. Pearson, Esq. 5 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 6 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 7
8 4. Nan Rogers Eisley-Bennett, Witness 7312 Puckershire Street 9 Las Vegas, NV 89166
10 5. Giovanni Galacgac c/o Skyler H. Pearson, Esq. 11 Assistant United States Attorney 12 U.S. Attorney’s Office 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 13 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone No.: (702) 388-6336 14 6. Officer S. Eckert, Badge #H4171 15 Nevada Highway Patrol 16 4615 W. Sunset Road Las Vegas, NV 89118 17 Plaintiff reserves the right to call any witness produced and/or identified by 18 19 Defendant. 20 Defendant objects to the designation of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness as that 21 rule applies to deposition testimony and not testimony related to trial. Furthermore, 22 Plaintiff fails to list specific topics to be covered by any 30(b)(6) witness. Defendant 23 reserves all rights of objections to testimonies at trial including but not limited to any 24 expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or are not 25 relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow 26 27 Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. Defendant, USA, also objects to 1 Defendant’s Witnesses: 2 1. Jeffrey P. Bennett, Plaintiff c/o Adam R. Fulton, Esq. 3 Logan G. Willson, Esq. JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. 4 2580 Sorrel Street Las Vegas, NV 89146 5 6 2. James Aliitaeao, Witness c/o Skyler H. Pearson, Esq. 7 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 8 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 9 10 3. Nan Rogers Eisley-Bennett, Witness 7312 Puckershire Street 11 Las Vegas, NV 89166 12 4. Officer S. Eckert, Badge #H4171 Nevada Highway Patrol 13 4615 W. Sunset Road 14 Las Vegas, NV 89118 15 Defendant reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Plaintiff’s witness 16 list and named during the course of discovery. Defendant reserves the right to call rebuttal 17 and/or impeachment witnesses at trial. 18 Plaintiff reserves all rights of objections to testimonies at trial including but not 19 limited to any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, 20 21 and/or are not relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. 22 Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. Plaintiff also reserves the 23 right to object to testimony by any witness that was not disclosed during the discovery 24 period. 25 IX. 26 The attorneys or parties have met and jointly offer these three trial dates: 27 March 13, 2023 – March 17, 2023; 1 March 20, 2023 — March 24, 2023; and 2 May 1, 2023 — May 5, 2023. 3 X. 4 It is estimated that the trial will take a total of 2-3 days. 5 6 || DATED: November 7th, 2022 DATED: November 7th, 2022 7 || JENNINGS & FULTON, LTD. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 8 9 __/s/ Logan G. Willson, Esq. __/s/ Skyler H. Pearson, Esq. ADAM R. FULTON, ESQ. JASON M. FRIERSON, ESQ. 10 || Nevada Bar No. 11572 Nevada Bar No. 7709 E-mail: afulton@jfnvlaw.com SKYLER H. PEARSON, ESQ. 11 || LOGAN G. WILLSON, ESQ. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES Nevada Bar No. 14967 ATTORNEY 12 1 Email: logan@)fnvlaw.com 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Ste. 1100 43 || 2580 Sorrel Street Email: □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 Attorneys for the United States 14 || Attorneys for Plaintiff g 2 15 XI. 16 ACTION BY THE COURT 4 5 jury 17 This case is set for beneh trial on the fixed/stacked calendar on 18 || May 8, 2023, at 8:30a.m.in7D . 19 Calendar Call will be held on May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.in 7D 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 December Dated this > _ day of Meventber, 2022 23 24 25 6 Glori Navarro, District Judge UNI STATES DISTRICT COURT 27 28