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.

AIM Recycling Florida, LLC v. Metals USA, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

January 15, 2020

AIM RECYCLING OF FLORIDA, LLC and LKQ PICK YOUR PART SOUTHEAST, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
METALS USA, INC., UNIVERSAL SCRAP MANAGEMENT, LLC, OBED LENDIAN, and SAMUEL ABREU, Defendants.

          OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants Metals USA, Inc. (“Metals USA”) and Obed Lendian's (“Lendian”) (collectively, “Defendants”)[1] Motion in Limine, ECF No. [224] (“Defendants' Motion”), and Plaintiffs AIM Recycling of Florida, LLC (“AIM”) and LKQ Pick Your Part Southeast, LLC's (“LKQ”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Amended Motion in Limine, ECF No. [233] (“Plaintiffs' Motion”), (collectively, the “Motions”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, all opposing and supporting submissions, the attached exhibits, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion in Limine is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' Amended Motion in Limine is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. BACKGROUND[2]

         In Defendants' Motion, they move to preclude Plaintiffs from introducing the following at the upcoming trial:

a. Any evidence of Lendian's prior invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege;
b. Any reference to, and any evidence obtained from, the Department of Justice's (“DOJ”) criminal investigation;[3]
c. Any reference to the failure of a party to call a witness equally available to all parties;
d. Any references to the motions in limine;
e. Any reference to discovery disputes between the parties; and
f. Any references to persons or the purported testimony of persons who have not been properly and timely disclosed in the responses to written discovery or in the Rule 26 disclosures.

         Similarly, in Plaintiffs' Motion, they move to preclude Defendants from introducing the following at the upcoming trial:

a. Any evidence or argument of the DOJ's previous criminal declination as a basis for non-liability;
b. Any evidence or argument of Plaintiffs' alleged prior bad acts; and
c. Any evidence or argument of Plaintiffs' “extortion” of Defendants.[4]

         The Court will address each Motion individually below.

         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.