Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dawson v. Carbollosa

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

December 17, 2014

KINYA DAWSON
v.
HECTOR CARBOLLOSA, ET AL

RULING

ROBERT G. JAMES, District Judge.

This is a motor vehicle diversity case in which Plaintiff, Kinya Dawson ("Dawson") was allegedly injured when her vehicle collided with an 18-wheeler driven by Defendant Hector Carballosa ("Carballosa"). Pending is Plaintiff's Motion In Limine seeking the exclusion of certain evidence at trial. [Doc No. 32].

Defendants filed an Opposition Memorandum. [Doc. No. 35]. Plaintiff filed a reply. [Doc. No. 40].

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and otherwise DENIED AS VAGUE.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2013, Dawson was traveling eastbound through Monroe, Louisiana, in the inside lane of Interstate 20. [Doc. No. 30, Exh. 4, p. 2]. Carballosa, an employee of Defendant Jorge Sanchez, d/b/a Midnight Express Transportation, was also driving eastbound in an 18-wheeler, but in the outside lane. Id. Dawson and Carballosa's vehicles collided near the Texas Avenue off-ramp, apparently as Carballosa changed lanes. Id. at p. 1. As a result, Carballosa received a traffic citation for "improper lane usage" and a citation under "33.2.79." Id. at pp. 2 & 4. However, on August 15, 2013, Carballosa pled guilty to a non-moving violation, see [Doc. No. 30, Exh. 5], not to an "improper lane usage" violation as indicated in Plaintiff's Petition. [Doc. No. 1-2, ΒΆ 22].

Dawson initiated this action on December 27, 2013, in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana. [Doc. No. 1-2]. On January 13, 2014, Defendants Carballosa, Jorge Sanchez, and Canal Indemnity Company (collectively "the Defendants") removed to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 1-1].

Dawson works for the City of Monroe and is insured under the City's agreement with United HealthCare Insurance Company ("United"). The City of Monroe's insurance agreement, which was in effect on the date of the accident, contains a subrogation clause that states that the City's plan "is substituted to and shall succeed to any and all legal claims that [the insured] may be entitled to pursue against any third party for the Benefits that the Plan has paid." [Doc. No. 30, Exh. 3, p. 85]. United has paid for $36, 938.60 of Dawson's medical expenses, although to date they have only provided Defendants with an itemization of charges in the amount of $13, 000.30. [Doc. No. 35, Exh. 1].

Plaintiff was involved in at least three automobile accidents prior to this accident and had received medical treatment to her back as a result of at least one of those accidents. Plaintiff does not remember the exact date, but states that she was in an accident at some point between "98 and 2000." [Doc. No. 36, Exh. 2, p. 2]. Plaintiff went to the hospital and hired an attorney as a result of that accident but could not recall whether her attorney filed suit or whether she received a settlement. Id. at 4-5.

At some point in 2004, an 18-wheeler rear ended Plaintiff. Id. at 8. Plaintiff did not initiate legal action and apparently did not receive medical attention as a result. Id. at 11.

Plaintiff could not recall the exact date, but she was involved in a third accident on the Millhaven I-20 overpass. Id. at 12. Plaintiff received medical care, filed suit, and received a settlement as a result of that accident. Id. at 13-15.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion In Limine on November 25, 2014. [Doc. No. 32]. Defendants filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 36]. Plaintiff replied. [Doc. No. 41].

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.