United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Charles B. Goodwin United States District Judge.
before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Defendant Sarah Josephine Roberts (Doc. No. 15).
Plaintiff Nimrah Bader has responded in opposition (Doc. No.
case arises from an auto-pedestrian accident that occurred on
September 20, 2018, at the southwest corner of Park Avenue
and Hudson Avenue in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
See Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 3, 5. Plaintiff
alleges that, while attempting to cross Hudson, she was
struck by Defendant's vehicle when Defendant-who had been
driving west on Park-turned south onto Hudson. Id.
filed this lawsuit on April 1, 2019, asserting claims against
Defendant for common-law negligence and negligence per se.
Id. ¶¶ 9-12. Plaintiff alleges that as a
result of the accident she sustained a subdural hematoma
necessitating hospitalization and has permanently lost her
sense of smell and taste-a medical condition known as
anosmia. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff seeks to recover
past and future medical expenses, as well as past and future
pain and suffering. Id.
filed the instant motion on November 4, 2019, seeking summary
judgment on Plaintiff's claims for “future
damages”-namely, damages attributed to permanent
injury, future medical expenses, and/or future pain and
suffering. Def.'s Mot. (Doc. No. 15) at 1 (emphasis
omitted). Defendant contends that under Oklahoma law, an
award of future damages must be supported by medical expert
testimony and that, having failed to designate a single
expert witness, Plaintiff has not established the requisite
evidentiary basis for any such recovery. Id.
judgment is a means of testing in advance of trial whether
the available evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find
in favor of the party asserting a claim. The Court must grant
summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “An
issue is ‘genuine' if there is sufficient evidence
on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve
the issue either way.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). “An
issue of fact is ‘material' if under the
substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of
the claim.” Id.
that moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing
that the undisputed material facts require judgment as a
matter of law in its favor. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). To defeat summary
judgment, the nonmovant need not convince the Court that it
will prevail at trial, but it must cite sufficient evidence
admissible at trial to allow a reasonable jury to find in the
nonmovant's favor-i.e., to show that there is a question
of material fact that must be resolved by the jury. See
Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir.
2005). The Court must then determine “whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
may establish the existence or nonexistence of a material
disputed fact by:
• citing to “depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, interrogatory
answers, or other materials” in the record; or
• demonstrating “that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). While the Court views the
evidence and the inferences drawn from the record in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, see
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. PepsiCo,
Inc., 431 F.3d 1241, 1255 (10th Cir. 2005), “[t]he
mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the
[nonmovant's] position will be insufficient; there must
be evidence on which ...