United States District Court, D. Colorado
Merwyn Matson, an individual, and Audrey Matson, an individual, Plaintiffs,
Dillon Companies, Inc. d/b/a King Soopers, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, Defendant.
Nina Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge
1. DATE OF CONFERENCE AND APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
The scheduling Conference in the above-captioned matter is scheduled to take place on February 29, 2016 at 9:00 am. The Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas E. Napp, 600 Grant Street, Suite 505, Denver, CO 80203, Phone: (303) 939-3380. Tne Defendant is represented by Dina M Bernardelli, Zupkus & Angell, P.C., Denver, CO 80203, Phone: (303) 8948948.
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This action was removed by Defendant based on diversity jurisdiction, United States Constitution, Article III, § 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as Plaintiffs are residents of Colorado and Defendant is incorporated and has a principle place of business in Kansas. Venue is proper as the accident took place in the City of Conifer, County of Jefferson, within the U.S. District of Colorado.
3. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
a. Plaintiffs: The Plaintiff Merwyn Matson claims that Defendant Dillon Companies, Inc. d/b/a King Soopers breached its duty by failing to prevent or remove a wet floor slip- and-fall hazard in the men's restroom at the King Soopers Market at 25637 Conifer Road, Conifer, Colorado 80433. As a result, Plaintiff slipped and fell on the afternoon of June 5, 2014 causing him to strike the back of his head on a tile corner of a wall in the restroom. Matson has suffered injuries and damages including injury to his cerebellum, injury to his inner ear, a balance disorder, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and a loss of enjoyment of life.
b. Defendant: Defendant denies liability, and denies that any statements regarding liability were made to Plaintiff at the time of the incident. Generally, there was a warning cone placed at the restroom entrance. Further, there is no evidence that Defendant knew or should have known of a hazard that may have caused Plaintiffs fall. Plaintiff's damages should be reduced or barred to the extent of Plaintiff's own negligence. Plaintiff's fall and/or claimed injures could be the result of pre-existing conditions, or conditions that occurred from another cause arising after the fall at Defendant's store.
4 UNDISPUTED FACTS
Curre ntl y the re are ve ry fe w undi spute d facts. The partie s agree to provi de a state me nt of undi spute d facts afte r i ni ti al di scove ry can be unde rtake n.
5. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES
Plaintiffs claim future medical costs are being determined and these disclosures will be supplemented once the need for future medical care is quantified. Mr. Matson has been informed that at a minimum physical therapy for his balance disorder will continue through the end of 2016. In addition, Mr. Matson is making claim for the following expenses:
Mileage: 2119miles x. 19/mile
Matson also seeks damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
6. REPORT OF PRECONFERENCE DISCOVERY AND MEETING UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)
a. Date of Rule 26(f) meeting: Counsel for each party conferred on February 10, 2016.
b. Names of each participant and party he/she represented:
Thomas R. Napp -Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dina M Bernardelli -Attorney for Defendant
c. Statement as to when Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were ...