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.

Class Racing Stable, LLC v. Breeders' Cup Limited

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division

March 27, 2018

CLASS RACING STABLE, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
BREEDERS' CUP, LIMITED, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DANNY C. REEVES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is pending for consideration of Defendant Breeders9; Cup, Limited9;s (“Breeders9; Cup”) motion to exclude Plaintiff Class Racing Stable, LLC9;s (“Class Racing”) expert witnesses [Record No. 74] and motion for summary judgment [Record No. 75]. The defendant9;s motions will be granted for the reasons outlined below.

         I.

         As the Court has discussed previously, this case arises out of events surrounding the 2015 Breeders9; Cup. Class Racing brought suit against Breeders9; Cup in the Fayette Circuit Court under various theories of negligence, detrimental reliance, and misrepresentation. [Record No. 1-1] The action was later removed to this Court. [Record No. 1] Class Racing9;s misrepresentation and construed promissory estoppel claims were dismissed on February 10, 2017. [Record No. 9] As a result, Class Racing was limited to a negligence claim for damages for the amount that Holy Lute9;s value would have increased had he simply run in the Turf Sprint. Id. at p. 4-5.

         Breeders9; Cup filed the present motions, alleging that Class Racing9;s proposed expert witnesses, Thomas Clark and Steve Pollack, should be excluded. [Record No. 74] Additionally, it contends that summary judgment is appropriate because Class Racing cannot prove with reasonable certainty that damages resulted from its alleged negligence. [Record No. 75]

         II.

         Any challenge to expert testimony must begin with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence which was modified in December 2000 to reflect the Supreme Court9;s holdings in Daubert[1] and Kumho Tire.[2] Rule 702 states:

         A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

         (a) the expert9;s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

         (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

         (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

         (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

         Fed. R. Evid. 702.

         Thus, for an expert's opinion to be admissible, it must satisfy three requirements. “First, the witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Second, the testimony must be relevant, meaning that it will assist t he t rier of fact to understa nd the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Third, the testimony must be reliable.” In re ScrapMetal Antitrust Litigation, 527 F.3d 517, 529-30 (6th Cir. 2006). When a party's expert witness is challenged, the Court assumes 1the role of a gatekeeper to determine whether the proposed testimony may be presented to the fact-finder. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 587; see also In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 528 (noting that “[i]n Daubert the Court charged trial judges with the responsibility ...


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.