Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves a January 1, 2024 rear-end collision between Defendant Freightstar Expedited, LLC's tractor-trailer and Plaintiff Xiao Yan Lyu's vehicle. Plaintiff alleges a severe traumatic brain injury preventing regular work and claims damages including 'loss of past and future income' and 'wage/income loss (past and future)' in her August 5, 2024 complaint. In December 2024 disclosures, she listed 'Lost Wages/Business Losses' as a damages category, later quantified by her expert CPA Vince Cummins as $1.8 million in lost profits from her co-owned business Spicin' Foods. Defendant moved to strike the expert report, arguing the business losses were not properly pleaded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g) and constituted an unfair surprise. The Court denied the motion, finding the complaint's 'income loss' allegations sufficiently stated special damages, and set a February 3, 2026 status conference to address potential discovery adjustments.
Issues
- The court evaluated whether Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's damages expert under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) was valid, given the expert's timely disclosure under Rule 26(a)(2). The court found no failure to comply with Rule 26(a) or (e) and determined that the expert's report was properly disclosed, making Rule 37(c)(1) inapplicable.
- The court addressed whether Plaintiff's claim for lost profits from her co-owned business, Spicin' Foods, constituted special damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g) and whether she sufficiently pled these damages in her Complaint. The court concluded that the Complaint's general allegations of 'loss of past and future income' were adequate to put Defendant on notice of the damages claim, as they encompassed business-related income losses, and that the late expert disclosure did not warrant exclusion of the expert or his report.
Holdings
- The Court held that Plaintiff's Complaint sufficiently pled special damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g) for lost business profits from her co-owned company, Spicin' Foods. The Court reasoned that the Complaint's allegations of 'loss of past and future income' and 'wage/income loss' encompassed business-related income losses, even if 'business losses' were not explicitly stated. The Court also noted that any pleading deficiency could have been cured by allowing an amendment, which was not required here as the Complaint provided adequate notice to the Defendant.
- The Court further held that Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's expert report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) was meritless. The Court found Plaintiff's expert disclosures were timely under the Scheduling Order and Rule 26(a)(2), and Defendant failed to demonstrate any substantial failure to comply with disclosure requirements. The Court emphasized that the expert report was properly served over 40 days before discovery closed, allowing Defendant sufficient opportunity to rebut the expert's analysis.
Remedies
- The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert (ECF No. 71), which sought to exclude the expert's report on damages related to lost business profits. The Court found the expert's disclosure timely and the prejudice to Defendant minimal, with the possibility of minor adjustments to the Scheduling Order.
- A Status Conference is set for February 3, 2026 at 1:30 PM (central) by telephone to consider any potential prejudice and discuss Defendant's request for additional discovery time and a rebuttal expert. Participants must use the provided conference line and access code.
- All unexpired deadlines set by the Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 68) are held in abeyance pending further order from the Court. This includes the January 12, 2026 discovery deadline and other case deadlines.
Legal Principles
- The court rejected the defendant's argument to exclude the plaintiff's expert under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), finding no failure to comply with disclosure requirements. The expert disclosures were timely, and the defendant had adequate notice of the damages claim through initial disclosures and depositions.
- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g), special damages such as lost business profits must be specifically stated in the complaint to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. The court found the plaintiff's allegations of 'loss of past and future income' sufficiently encompassed business losses, satisfying Rule 9(g)'s liberal pleading standard.
Precedent Name
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Brantley
- Quinones v. Penn. Gen. Ins. Co.
Cited Statute
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Teresa J. James
Passage Text
- The Court finds Plaintiff has met the relatively liberal pleading standard to 'specifically state' a claim for special damages under Rule 9(g).
- The Court finds Rule 37(c)(1) inapplicable here. Defendant does not elaborate on what information Plaintiff failed to provide that was required by Rule 26(a) or (e).
- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert (ECF No. 71) is DENIED.