Munoz, et al. vs. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al.

Filing 509

ORDER RESPECTING 468 Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine #3, signed by Judge M Miller Baker on 01/10/2022. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM ORDER RESPECTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #3 PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiffs’ third motion in limine (ECF 468, at 8–9) requests an order “to 16 preclude Defendants from presenting any argument, testimony, or evidence 17 regarding or referencing Defendants’ financial conditions.” ECF 468, at 8. 18 In response, Defendants state as follows: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 During a meet and confer between the parties on December 1, 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs confirmed that, as articulated in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement, this motion seeks to preclude only argument, evidence[,] or testimony about Defendants’ current financial condition or current ability or inability to pay damages owed to Plaintiffs (if any). Defendants have no present intention to introduce evidence regarding the current financial condition of any Defendant, and therefore take no position on Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendants’ financial condition related to the class period is plainly relevant to Plaintiffs’ RESPA claim. 29 ECF 479, at 7 (emphasis in original; citations omitted). In reply, Plaintiffs 30 characterize motion #3 as seeking to preclude “any argument, testimony, or 31 evidence regarding or referencing Defendants’ present financial conditions or 1 current ability or inability to pay damages owed to Plaintiffs.” ECF 493, at 2 2 (emphasis added). 3 The characterization of motion #3 in Plaintiffs’ reply brief is more limited 4 in scope than the phrasing used in the original motion because the original 5 motion does not limit the requested order to Defendants’ “present financial con- 6 ditions or current ability or inability to pay”—the original motion simply refers 7 to “Defendants’ financial conditions (and ability or inability to pay damages 8 owed to Plaintiffs).” ECF 468, at 9. Because Plaintiffs’ reply brief limits the 9 scope of the order sought to that described by Defendants in their responsive 10 brief, and because Defendants take no position on the motion insofar as it has 11 that narrower scope, there is no reason not to grant the limited order. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #3 13 is GRANTED to the extent that, at trial, Defendants may not offer any argu- 14 ment, testimony, or evidence regarding or referencing Defendants’ present fi- 15 nancial conditions or current ability or inability to pay damages owed to Plain- 16 tiffs, and is DENIED to the extent it seeks any other relief. 17 18 Dated: January 10, 2022 1 /s/ M. Miller Baker M. Miller Baker, Judge 1 Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?