Dhaliwal et al v. Singh et al

Filing 135

ORDER on Motions in Limine (Docs. 121 , 122 , 123 ), (Jury Trial 10/15/2014), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/29/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

JAJEEVAN K. DHALIWAL, and MOHINDER S.
GILL,

9
10

1:13-cv-00484-LJO-SKO
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(Docs. 121, 122, 123)

Plaintiffs,
v.

(Jury Trial 10-15-2014)

11
12 KS CHANDI & SONS, INC., et al.,
13

Defendants.

14
INTRODUCTION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs Jajeevan K. Dhaliwal and Mohinder S. Gill (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against
Defendants KS Chandi & Sons, Inc., Chandi Brothers, LLC, Nirmal Singh (“Singh”), Nachhattar S.
Chandi, Susana E. Chandi, and Valley Petroleum In.c (collectively, “Defendants”) for claims arising
out of investments in Stanislaus County gas stations/convenience stores. Pending before the Court are
Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ motions in limine. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court
rules on the motions in limine as follows.
BACKGROUND
Singh is an ARCO AM PM (“AM PM”) franchisee and developer, who, together with
Nachhattar S. Chandi and Susana E. Chandi (“Chandis”), sought investors to purchase AM PM gas
station/convenience stores. Singh and the Chandis own more than ten AM PMs in California.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, claim to have invested in AM PMs at issue in this action. At all relevant
times, Singh was the chief financial officer (“CFO”) and a shareholder of Chandi & Sons, Inc., and of
Chandi Brothers, LLC. At all relevant times, Nachhattar S. Chandi and Susana E. Chandi were
1

1
2

President and Secretary, respectively, of Chandi & Sons, Inc., and of Chandi Brothers, LLC.
Following motions to dismiss by Defendants, two of Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter remain

3

viable: Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for breach of contract against Chandi & Sons, Inc., and

4

Plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action for involuntary dissolution against Chandi & Sons, Inc., and Chandi

5

Brothers, LLC. (Doc. 25).

6
7
8
9
10

On March 5, 2014, this Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to
Plaintiff’s tenth cause of action. (Doc. 51).
On September 15, 2014, Defendants filed motions in limine. (Doc. 121). Plaintiffs filed
oppositions on September 22, 2014. (Doc. 129).
On September 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed motions in limine. (Docs. 122, 123). Defendants filed

11 oppositions on September 22, 2014. (Docs. 131, 132).
12

This case is scheduled for trial on October 15, 2014.
LEGAL STANDARD

13
14

A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it

15 is actually introduced at trial. See, Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). “[A] motion in
16 limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded
17 management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d
18 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before
19 trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury, thereby relieving
20 the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v.
21 Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2003).
22

Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored, and such issues

23 are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire &
24 Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Additionally, some evidentiary issues are not
25 accurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in limine, and it is necessary to defer
26 ruling until during trial when the trial judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury.
27 Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440.
28

2

1
2

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1. Exclude non-party witnesses from courtroom during trial

3

In their first motion in limine, Defendants request exclusion of all non-party witnesses from the

4

courtroom except during trial to testify pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 615. Defendants expressed concern

5

in particular as to potential witnesses Harpreet Dhaliwal and Amanda Bui because their “testimony

6

will be influenced by what other witnesses testify to during the trial.” (Doc. 121). Plaintiffs argue

7

Defendants’ MIL should be denied because witness Amanda Bui is not a qualified witness and

8

therefore cannot be excluded from courtroom.

9

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. All non-party potential witnesses are excluded from the

10 courtroom during trial. A potential witness is a person that an officer of the court represents, in good
11 faith, may testify.
12
13

2. Exclude testimony and evidence of Plaintiff’s experts
Defendants seek to exclude testimony and evidence of Plaintiffs’ experts Sheila Lowe and Phil

14 Pisano. Defendants argue that Lowe was not identified as a witness until August 1, 2014, after the
15 parties’ expert disclosures were due on April 18, 2014. Defendants further argue that Pisano was
16 timely identified as an expert but Plaintiffs did not provide any report from either expert.
17

Plaintiffs state that they have removed Pisano as an expert witness. Therefore, Defendants’

18 motion as to Pisano is DENIED as moot.
19

Plaintiffs further argue Lowe is an impeachment witness, so no is disclosure is required.

20 Further, if disclosure is required, Plaintiffs argue they complied with disclosure requirements for an
21 impeachment expert witness.
22

Lowe must qualify as a legally defined “impeachment witness” or she will be excluded. The

23 Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to submit a declaration by no later than October 6, 2014 indicating why she
24 so qualifies.
25
26

3. Exclude evidence not timely disclosed by Plaintiffs
Defendants seek to exclude evidence contained in Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures that

27 were filed after the close of discovery in this case.
28

3

1
2
3

Plaintiffs argue that they timely disclosed all the evidence and documents as the supplemental
disclosure are simply the same documents as previously disclosed, just with BATES stamped numbers.
Plaintiffs further argue that the specific evidence Defendants seek to exclude is impeachment

4

evidence of “Mr. Singh committing perjury in this Court” which Plaintiffs are not required to disclose;

5

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer as to whether Plaintiffs’ documents and

6

evidence were timely disclosed without BATES stamps. If Plaintiffs’ documents and evidence were

7

not timely disclosed without BATES stamps, they will be excluded.

8
9

4. Exclude testimony of witnesses not disclosed during discovery
Defendants request that the Court exclude the testimony of a number of individuals Plaintiffs

10 listed on their trial witness list, filed August 25, 2014, that were not disclosed in Plaintiffs’ initial
11 disclosures while discovery was open. Plaintiffs argue the specific witnesses Defendants seek to
12 exclude are impeachment witnesses; therefore, no disclosure is required.
13

These witnesses must qualify as a legally defined “impeachment witness” or they will be

14 excluded. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to submit a declaration by no later than October 6, 2014
15 indicating why each witness at issue so qualifies.
16
17

5. Bifurcate trial on Plaintiffs’ claims (FRCP 42(b))
Defendants request an order to bifurcate the trial on Plaintiffs’ two remaining claims, breach of

18 contract and involuntary dissolution. Defendants argue bifurcation is necessary because Plaintiffs have
19 no claim on the second claim unless and until they have succeeded on the first. Defendants are also
20 concerned that evidence as to the second claim will be prejudicial as to Defendant Singh.
21

Plaintiffs stipulate to bifurcation of the trial on their two claims.

22

The parties are ORDERED to submit a trial estimate as to the breach of contract claim and as to

23 the involuntary dissolution claim as bifurcated. The Court will rule on bifurcation following the
24 parties’ submission of the trial estimate.
25

6. Exclude evidence or comment regarding settlement communications and “witness

26

tampering”

27

Defendants request an order preventing all counsel and witnesses from offering any evidence or

28 argument regarding settlement communications between Defendants and Plaintiffs or Defendants and
4

1

other litigants and allegations that Defendant Singh engaged in “witness tampering” by making

2

payment or settlement offers to litigants in other cases. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion is

3

vague, and that Defendant Singh’s alleged offers to pay Plaintiffs and third parties are relevant and

4

admissible.

5

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to evidence of settlement communications between

6

Defendants and Plaintiffs or Defendants and other litigants. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to

7

evidence of Singh offering payment to litigants in other cases as “witness tampering” because it is

8

relevant on issues of potential witness bias.

9
10

7. Exclude evidence of other lawsuits against Defendants
Defendants seek exclusion of evidence as to other lawsuits against Defendants. Plaintiffs

11 appear to agree to exclude evidence of other lawsuits against Defendants.
12
13
14

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED on the grounds of relevancy and Fed. R. Evid. 403.
8. Exclude arguments and evidence as to character
Defendants seek to exclude any evidence concerning any party or witness’s general reputation

15 for truthfulness or honesty or lack thereof because such evidence will be more prejudicial than
16 probative. Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ motion should be denied due to vagueness and that evidence as
17 to witnesses’ truthfulness and credibility is admissible.
18
19

Defendants' motion is DENIED.
9. Exclude evidence that Plaintiffs are shareholders of Defendant KS Chandi, Inc. and/or

20

members of Defendant Chandi Brothers, LLC

21

Defendants argue Plaintiffs pled in their first amended complaint that they are neither

22 shareholders nor members of either KS Chandi, Inc. or Chandi Brothers, LLC. Plaintiffs argue
23 Defendants’ motion should be denied because of this Court’s finding in its order denying Defendants’
24 motion for summary judgment in which Defendants made the same argument that the pleadings in
25 Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint do not constitute a judicial admission that Plaintiffs are neither
26 shareholders nor members of either Defendant corporation. (Doc. 51).
27

“A judicial admission must be deliberate, clear, and unambiguous.” Grandoe Corp. v. Gander

28 Mountain Co., ––– F.3d ––––, ––––, 2014 WL 3765572, at *5 (8th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014). See also,
5

1

Truckstop.Net, L.L.C. v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1135 (D. Idaho 2008) (“To

2

qualify as a judicial admission, the admission must be ‘deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.’”) (quoting

3

Heritage Bank v. Redcom Laboratories, Inc., 250 F.3d 319, 329 (5th Cir. 2001)). The pleadings in

4

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint do not show a deliberate, clear, unambiguous, or unequivocal

5

admission that Plaintiffs are neither shareholders nor members of either KS Chandi, Inc. or Chandi

6

Brothers, LLC. Id.; (Doc. 14). Therefore, Plaintiffs did not make a judicial admission as to the same.

7

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

8
9

10. Exclude evidence regarding damages calculation
Defendants move to bar Plaintiffs from presenting any computation of damages at trial because

10 Plaintiffs failed to provide a computation of any category of damages in either their initial disclosures
11 and during discovery.
12

Plaintiffs argue they properly disclosed their damages calculations, totaling $6,402,086.00 in

13 “damages caused by Defendants” that is “not including the original $1,350,000 note,” in their
14 complaint. (Doc. 129).
15

Defendants’ motion is DENIED, but Plaintiffs may rely only on the amounts and damages

16 calculations disclosed in their complaint.
17
18
19
20
21

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1. Exclude Defendants’ documents and witnesses as evidentiary sanction for Defendants’
noncompliance with Court order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
Plaintiffs argue Defendants failed to comply with this Court’s June 30, 2014 order to produce
documents identified in supplemental disclosures and that such conduct warrants evidentiary sanctions.

22

Defendants argue they fully and timely complied with Court’s order to supplement initial disclosures

23

and that a technology malfunction delayed Plaintiffs’ ability to access the supplemental disclosures

24
25
26

provided by Defendants.
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
2. Exclude testimony of witnesses who lack personal knowledge

27
28

6

1

Plaintiffs argue five of Defendants’ witnesses were not present during 2006 through mid-2011

2

and therefore have no personal knowledge as whether Plaintiffs purchased 50% of Defendants’ two

3

entities. Defendants argue those witnesses do have personal knowledge.

4
5
6

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED without prejudice, subject to a timely objection after the alleged
foundation has been laid.
3. Exclude evidence not related to this case

7

Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of and documents relating to lawsuits by third parties

8

against Defendants, third parties’ agreements and dealings with Defendant Singh and an unrelated civil

9

action against Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants agree to exclude evidence relating to Singh’s transaction

10 with Tennessee Commerce Bank as to properties not related to his case and to the civil action against
11 Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants argue other evidence Plaintiffs seek to exclude is relevant because it
12 shows the close personal and business relationship between Plaintiffs and a non-party witness as well
13 as possible impeachment of anticipated testimony by some witnesses.
14

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to lawsuits by third parties against Defendants, evidence

15 relating to Singh’s transaction with Tennessee Commerce Bank regarding properties not related to his
16 case, and the civil action against Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to evidence that
17 shows a close personal and business relationship between Plaintiffs and a non-party witness and as to
18 impeachment evidence because such evidence may involve witness bias issues.
19
20

4. Exclude improper character evidence
Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendants from introducing character evidence not related to

21 truthfulness as to witnesses and “speculative character evidence lacking a ‘good faith’ basis” based on
22 certain events involving Plaintiffs’ witnesses that Plaintiffs anticipate Defendants will bring up.
23 Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendants from introducing evidence as to the following
24 events involving two of Plaintiffs’ potential witnesses: 1) alleged “armed takeover” of the Hatch AM
25 PM by Plaintiff’s potential non-party witnesses Harpreet Dhaliwal and Amanda Bui; 2) alleged
26 fabrication of and alteration of documents relating to Plaintiff’s ownership of Defendant companies by
27 Harpreet Dhaliwal and Bui; 3) alleged improper receipt of money by Harpreet Dhaliwal and Bui in
28 unrelated transactions with Singh, Defendants, and other third parties; and 4) Harpreet Dhaliwal and
7

1

Bui allegedly using their personal relationship with each other to damage Singh. Plaintiffs argue

2

evidence as to the above alleged events is not relevant, and that, even if such evidence is relevant, it is

3

more prejudicial than probative. Defendants argue the evidence is relevant as to the credibility of two

4

of Plaintiffs’ witnesses.

5

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to character evidence not related to truthfulness as to

6

witnesses. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED without prejudice as to evidence regarding the alleged events

7

involving Harpreet Dhaliwal and Amanda Bui. The arguments and evidence before the Court is

8

inconclusive as to whether the evidence Defendants may seek to introduce is relevant or prejudicial.

9

Plaintiffs may renew this motion after Defendants clarify what evidence they plan to introduce in

10 relation to the above alleged events and for what purpose. This may be done at 8:15 AM on the
11 morning of trial. Counsel must advise the Court one week prior to trial if this is to happen.
12
13

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, the Court

14

1. GRANTS Defendants’ first motion in limine, Defendants’ sixth motion in limine as to

15

settlement communications between the parties and between Defendants and other litigants,

16

and Defendants’ seventh motion in limine;

17

2. DENIES Defendants’ second motion in limine as to expert witness Phil Pisano, Defendants’

18

sixth motion in limine as to evidence of Singh offering payment to litigants in other cases as

19

“witness tampering,” Defendants’ eighth motion in limine, Defendants’ ninth motion in limine,

20

and Defendants’ tenth motion in limine;

21

3. GRANTS Plaintiffs’ third motion in limine as to lawsuits by third parties against Defendants,

22

evidence relating to Singh’s transaction with Tennessee Commerce Bank regarding properties

23

not related to his case, and the civil action against Plaintiffs’ counsel, and Plaintiffs’ fourth

24

motion in limine as to character evidence not related to truthfulness as to witnesses;

25

4. DENIES Plaintiffs’ first motion in limine, and Plaintiffs’ third motion in limine as to evidence

26

that shows a close personal and business relationship between Plaintiffs and a non-party

27

witness and as to impeachment evidence;

28

5. DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine and Plaintiffs’ fourth motion in
8

1

limine as to alleged events involving Harpreet Dhaliwal and Amanda Bui;

2

6. ORDERS the parties to file submissions as to Defendants’ second motion in limine,

3

Defendants’ third motion in limine, and Defendants’ fourth motion in limine according to the

4

instructions contained herein; and

5
6

7. ORDERS the parties to file submissions as to bifurcation of the trial on Plaintiffs’ two claims
as instructed herein.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

September 29, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9