United States District Court, S.D. Florida
JOSE GARCIA, LEDVIN ALARCON, and all others similarly situated under 219 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs,
J&J, INC., d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING, JANET S. FIELD and JOHN H. FIELD, Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE
BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs'
Motion in Limine, ECF No. 
(“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.
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
Court addresses each in turn.
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).
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.
this lens, the Court considers the Motion.