Burns v. Kelly, No. 3:2017cv00264 - Document 163 (W.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE DECEMBER 8, 2020 162 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burns v. Kelly Doc. 163 Case 3:17-cv-00264-DCG Document 163 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION JOSEPH L. BURNS, Plaintiff, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § EP-17-CV-00264-DCG ORDER CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE DECEMBER 8, 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 8, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 162) in the above-styled case. Following the entry of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court has observed certain typographical errors therein. The Court issues this Order to correct those errors. IT IS ORDERED that the following sentences in the Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 162) are CORRECTED as follows: On page 19 (second paragraph), the sentence, “The panel went to further hold that the causation standards under § 501 of the RA and ADA are equivalent, id. at 516; and the ADA standard announced in Soledad governs § 501 claims, id. at 519 (quoting Soledad, 304 F.3d at 503–04).” (underline added) IS CORRECTED AS “The panel went on to further hold that the causation standards under § 501 of the RA and ADA are equivalent, id. at 516; and the ADA standard announced in Soledad governs § 501 claims, id. at 519 (quoting Soledad, 304 F.3d at 503–04).”; On page no. 32 (second paragraph), the citation sentence, “Id. at 7, 15, 19.” (underline added) IS CORRECTED AS “Def.’s Suppl. Mot. at 7, 15, 19.”; On Page no. 50 (second paragraph), the sentence, “He then testified that experiences migraines at the same rate “now,” that is, at the time of trial.” (underline added) IS CORRECTED AS “He then testified that he experiences migraines at the same rate “now,” that is, at the time of trial.”; Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:17-cv-00264-DCG Document 163 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2 On page no. 50 (last paragraph), the sentence, “That he continued to suffer increased migraines was to date, in essence, his counsel’s testimony, not his.” (underline added) IS CORRECTED AS “That he continued to suffer increased migraines to date was, in essence, his counsel’s testimony, not his.”; and On page no. 58 (second paragraph), the sentence, “For now, the Court will conditionally deny the Secretary’s motion for new trial on damages and order Burns to notify the Court within 14 days of this memorandum opinion and order—whether it accepts the remittitur or instead, wishes to proceed to a new trial on compensatory damages (i.e., noneconomic damages).” (underline added) IS CORRECTED AS “For now, the Court will conditionally deny the Secretary’s motion for new trial on damages and order Burns to notify the Court within 14 days of this memorandum opinion and order—whether it accepts the remittitur or instead, wishes to proceed to a new trial on compensatory damages (i.e., noneconomic damages).” So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of December 2020. ____________________________________ DAVID C. GUADERRAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
