Hamilton v. Hall

Full title: JOHN HAMILTON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. SUSAN HALL, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jul 26, 2007

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-74698 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 26, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-74698.

July 26, 2007

ORDER

AVERN COHN, District Judge

On July 18, 2007, the Court considered the following two motions at a hearing:

• Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. # 208)

• Defendant Van Buren's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Damages Claim (Dkt. # 191)

For reasons stated on the record, the motion to compel is MOOT.

For reasons stated on the record, the motion to strike plaintiffs' damages claim is DENIED.

Three damage computation papers have been filed by plaintiffs:

1. The Rule 26(2)(B) Report of Landini, Reed Dawson, P.C., dated June 18, 2007;

2. The Supplemental Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Report of Landini, Reed Dawson, P.C., dated July 12, 2007; and

3. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Rule 26(a) Damages Consultation filed July 13, 2007 (Dkt. # 223-5).

These papers are sufficient at this point in the case to support the claim of damages of Jo-Bet, Inc. and Garter Belt, Inc. only.

The fact that the earnings of Jo-Bet, Inc. and Garter-Belt, Inc. for income tax purposes pass through to John Hamilton does not, as the record stands at this point, establish a claim of damages by John Hamilton. See Letter of July 19, 2007 to the Court.

SO ORDERED.