Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01036/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01036-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Randolph

Cregger & 25

Chalfant

26

 1

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ORDER THEREON

John S. Gilmore, Esq. (SBN: 32491)

gilmore@randolphlaw.net

Thomas a. Cregger, Esq. (SBN: 124402)

tac@randolphlaw.net

Stephanie L. Quinn, Esq. (SBN: 216655)

slq@randolphlaw.net

RANDOLPH CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP

1030 G Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-4443 

Facsimile: (916) 443-2124 

Attorneys for Defendant

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN F. REDOS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. 2:08-CV-01036-MCE-KJM

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR

PAGE LIM ITA TIO N

EXTENSION FOR MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

ORDER THEREON

Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (“Union Pacific”) hereby requests

that the Court allow Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment in this matter that exceeds

the page limitation of twenty (20) pages, which is set forth in the Court’s Amended Pretrial

Scheduling Order, dated July 6, 2009. There is good cause to allow Defendant to file a supporting

memorandum in excess of the page limitation, for the following reasons: 

This case arises out of the derailment of a rail grinding consist (called the “RMS-4") owned

and operated by Harsco Track Technologies (“Harsco”) on November 9, 2006. Harsco performed

rail grinding services pursuant to a contract with Defendant Union Pacific. The RMS-4 was

Case 2:08-cv-01036-MCE -DAD Document 97 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Randolph

Cregger & 25

Chalfant

26

 2

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ORDER THEREON

traveling from Sparks, Nevada to Bakersfield, California, when it derailed in the Sierra Nevada

Mountains, near Alta, California. Two Harsco employees were killed. 

Plaintiff JOHN REDOS, a Harsco employee, was the supervisor of the RMS-4 and was

operating the equipment at the time it derailed. He has brought this lawsuit against Union Pacific

alleging that he suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident. He has asserted

the following claims in his Second Amended Complaint: (1) Negligence/Gross Negligence; (2)

Negligence Per Se; (3) Violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. §20701 et seq.

(“LIA”); (4) Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §51 et seq. (“FELA”); and (5) Violation

of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. §20301 et seq. (“FSAA”). 

This case involves complicated legal and factual issues that Defendant intends to present

to the Court by way of a summary judgment/adjudication motion. Those issues include, whether

Defendant can be liable under the FELA, LIA and FSAA. More specifically, whether Plaintiff

qualifies as a “borrowed servant” under the FELA to bring him within the protection of the federal

statutes, whether Defendant can be directly liable to a non-employee under the LIA and FSAA, and

whether those statutes apply to the rail grinding equipment at issue here. Other important legal

issues need to be resolved by the Court on a dispositive motion, including Defendant’s duties and

liability to Plaintiff for alleged negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se. This case

involves detailed evidence regarding brake systems, equipment maintenance and inspections, train

handling, and the contractual relationship between Union Pacific and Plaintiff’s employer, Harsco,

among other things. Substantial legal and factual analysis is needed in order to adequately address

these issues. 

Given the numerous issues presented by Plaintiff’s complaint and the legal and factual

matters at issue in this case, Defendant cannot adequately address the issues to be presented to the

Court by way of a summary judgment motion in a memorandum which is limited to twenty (20)

pages. Defendant believes that it can adequately address the issues in a memorandum not

exceeding forty (40) pages and hereby requests that the Court grant a page limitation increase,

Case 2:08-cv-01036-MCE -DAD Document 97 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Randolph

Cregger & 25

Chalfant

26

 3

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PAGE LIMITATION INCREASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ORDER THEREON

given the circumstances of this case. 

Dated: July 28, 2010 RANDOLPH CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP

 /s/ John S. Gilmore 

JOHN S. GILMORE

Attorneys for Defendant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. Given the excess page limit requested by Defendant, however,

Plaintiff’s Opposition, if any, shall also be subject to the same 40 page limitation. Should

Defendant elect to file a reply, it may be no more than 20 pages in length.

Dated: July 29, 2010

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01036-MCE -DAD Document 97 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 3