After the morning docket entry I earlier mentioned, the minute clerk put this in, at some point this afternoon:
. . . .Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel A. Pisano: Trial with jury held on 4/22/2013.
Defendant's Rule 50(a) motion [#198 -- the Saturday motion] - Ordered Granted in Part & Reserved in Part. Ordered trial with jury continued to 4/23/2013 at 9:15 AM [Editors correction] in Trenton - Courtroom 1 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. (Court Reporter: J. Caruso.). . . .
I didn't mention it over the weekend, but Merck had asked for a dismissal on Mr. Glynn's loss of consortium claim (an "emotional damages" count, to be sure) -- arguing that no evidence was put in by the plaintiffs, on this issue, in their case in chief. This is a pure guess -- but if I were guessing, I'd be inclined to believe the able Judge Pisano would be likely to grant Merck a dismissal fo that part of the case. We will know for certain, once a more formal order issues.
And so -- when an order from today's motion hearing issues (or a transcript of the 2 p.m. motion hearing, serving as the order) -- I'll summarize it right here, as a new post. We can be sure that the jury was excused early today -- as the motion hearing would have been outside of their earshot, in any event.
If I had to make a secondary guess, I'd guess that the issue of which state's substantive law will control -- on punitive damages -- has been decided, as well. And I'd guess that it will be New Jersey law, controlling. But we shall see.
No comments:
Post a Comment