Sigurdsson v. DiCarlantonio

Filing 100

ORDER denying without prejudice 97 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 4/14/2014. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PETUR M. SIGURDSSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:12-cv-920-Orl-TBS

ERNESTO DICARLANTONIO,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 97), which alleges:
“Plaintiff moves that the court exclude the following evidence listed on Defendant's
evidence list:
D-23 Light House Properties of America Office Policy Manual
D-24 Light House Properties of America DBPR License
Plaintiff brings this motion in limine on the grounds that they are not relevant to the
case. This evidence fails to pass the relevancy test outlined in Federal Rules of Evidence
rule 401. Both pieces of evidence fail to the relevant facts in question more or less
probable.”
The local rules of this court provide that “[i]n a motion or other application for an
order, the movant shall include a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a
statement of the basis for the request, and a memorandum of legal authority in support of
the request . . .” M. D. FLA. R. 3.01(a). A motion that is devoid of any argument as to why
the movant is entitled to relief shall be denied. Cf. Supermedia, LLC v. W.S. Marketing,
Inc., No. 8:11-cv-296-T-33TBM, 2011 WL 3625627, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2011);

Hickman v. Wal-Mart Stores, 152 F.R.D. 216, 219 (1993); United States v. Angulo, No.
8:12-cv-1379-JSM-EAJ, 2012 WL 6009338, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2012).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Since the
deadline for filing in limine motions has passed, Plaintiff has until close of business on
April 18, 2014 to file an amended motion.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 14, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Any Counsel of Record
Pro se Plaintiff
Pro se Defendant

-2-