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.

Garcia v. J & J, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

January 14, 2020

JOSE GARCIA, LEDVIN ALARCON, and all others similarly situated under 219 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs,
v.
J&J, INC., d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING, JANET S. FIELD and JOHN H. FIELD, Defendants.

          Valle, Judge

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE

          BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine, ECF No. [110] (“Motion”). The Court has considered the Motion, all opposing and supporting filings, the record in this case and the applicable law, and is otherwise duly advised.

         The parties' familiarity with the facts of the case is assumed. Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude from trial any testimony or other evidence of the following:

A. Any and all references to any prior arrests and/or criminal history and/or nolo contendere pleas regarding Jose Garcia;
B. Any and all references to any prior arrests and/or criminal history regarding Jonathan Quincy Oliver;
C. Any and all references to the Department of Labor's (“DOL”) decision to refrain from issuing post-investigation liquidated damages penalties against J&J, Inc. and any reference or argument that this decision means, or otherwise leads to the conclusion, that J&J, Inc. acted in good faith and that liquidated damages are unavailable at trial; and,
D. Any reference to the fact that the Motion has been filed or any ruling by the Court in response to Motion, suggesting or inferring to the jury that Plaintiffs have moved to prohibit certain matters from being heard by jurors, or that the Court has excluded certain matters from the hearing of the jury.

         The Court addresses each in turn.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         “In fairness to the parties and their ability to put on their case, a court should exclude evidence in limine only when it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. Gonzalez, 718 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” In re Seroquel Products Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 260989, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2009).

         Evidence is admissible if relevant, and evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence. Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402; United States v. Patrick, 513 Fed.Appx. 882, 886 (11th Cir. 2013). A district court may exclude relevant evidence under Rule 403 if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting of time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. “Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which the district court should invoke sparingly, and the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility.” Patrick, 513 Fed.Appx. at 886 (citing United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222, 1247 (11th Cir. 2011) and United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720, 734 (11th Cir. 2010)). The movant has the burden to demonstrate that the evidence is inadmissible. Gonzalez, 718 F.Supp.2d at 1345.

         Through this lens, the Court considers the Motion.

         II. ...


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.