Opinion ID: 874548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Address the Untimeliness of Dr. Walters's Motion for Summary Judgment?

Text: The Plaintiff lists as the first issue on appeal, Timeliness of Filing Motion for Summary Judgment? In her argument she states, Dr. Walters' filing of Joinder was filed fifty-five (55) days before trial and only twenty-five (25) days before the scheduled hearing of March 20, 2006, not the sixty days required by the Court Order or the twenty-eight (28) days required by IRCP 56(c). Respondent Walters acted in total derogation of the Court's Order and its rules of procedure, and should not have benefited thereby. Dr. Dixon's motion for summary judgment and Dr. Walters's motion in limine were timely filed and set for hearing to be held on March 20, 2006. Only Dr. Walters's joinder in Dr. Dixon's motion for summary judgment was untimely. All three motions raised the identical issues. At the beginning of the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel stated that he had no objection to hearing the motions that day. He stated: May it please the court. From Plaintiff's standpoint, we think the critical issue is obviously the present challenge by the defendants to eliminate or avoid Dr. Richter's testimony. Our case does, in fact, rise and fall upon him as our expert witness. We think that motion should go forward today so the court can make an early determination, or at least as early as is convenient to His Honor. Plaintiff's counsel then proceeded to argue the motions. The district court did not err in hearing Dr. Walters's motion for summary judgment.