Schmid et al v. Lafayette Insurance Company et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying as moot 27 and 29 Motion in Limine and denying 28 Motion in Limine. The parties can renew any objections at trial. Furthermore, the Court will take up the issue of whether Robert and Sonja Schmid have standing in this matter prior to commencing with trial during the scheduled pretrial conference. Counsel should, therefore, be prepared to argue thestanding issue at that time. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 10, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
ROBERT and SONJA SCHMID, husband and
wife; and SONROB HOSTS, LLC, an Arkansas
Corporation d/b/a LOOKOUT LODGE
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 3:11-CV-03094

LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Louisiana Corporation

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Currently before the Court are two Motions in Limine (Docs. 27 and 28) filed by Defendant
Lafayette Insurance Company (“Lafayette”) and one Motion in Limine (Doc. 29) filed by Plaintiffs.
Because this case is now scheduled for a bench trial, the Court finds that all issues raised in
Lafayette’s first Motion in Limine, as well as the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine, have
been mooted, as there is no danger in having a jury hear inadmissible evidence or argument.
Lafayette’s first Motion in Limine (Doc. 27) and Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 29) are,
therefore, DENIED AS MOOT.
As to Lafayette’s second Motion in Limine, to the extent that any issues have not been
mooted, the Court will make relevancy and other evidentiary determinations if and when issues arise
at trial, as the Court cannot definitely determine, at this time, that any of the evidence that Lafayette
requests be excluded is not relevant or material. Lafayette’s second Motion in Limine (Doc. 28) is,
therefore, DENIED.
The parties can renew any objections at trial. Furthermore, the Court will take up the issue
of whether Robert and Sonja Schmid have standing in this matter prior to commencing with trial

-1-

during the scheduled pretrial conference. Counsel should, therefore, be prepared to argue the
standing issue at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2012.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-