Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc. et al

Filing 224

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 01/23/09 ORDERING that dfts' 223 Supplemental Motion in Limine is DENIED.(Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CAPSTONE ORTHOPEDIC, INC.; SANTIAGO ROSALES; GLEN S. ELLIS; DAVID KIMZEY; ANGELA FULTON, HANGER PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:06-CV-02879-GEB-KJM ORDER RE DENIAL OF MOTION IN LIMINE FILED JANUARY 13, 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants Capstone, Ellis and Rosales ("Defendants") filed a supplemental motion in limine on January 13, 2009. Defendants argue in the motion that "[t]his Court should find that Hanger cannot sustain any cause of action based on the allegedly unlawful solicitation or hiring of Hanger's employees. . ." scope of this motion is unclear. Further, it is unclear why The

Defendants reference Hanger's Complaint in their motion since "[a] [final pretrial] order [ ] supersedes the [Complaint] under [Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and controls the 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

subsequent course of the action."

Donovan v. Crisostomo, 689 F.2d

869, 875 (9th Cir. 1982)(internal citation omitted). Since Defendants have not shown that any claim referenced in their motion has been preserved for trial in the final pretrial order, the motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2