Pierluca et al v. Quality Resources, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 61 is denied. No further motions in limine will be permitted. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 9/27/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

MARIO PIERLUCA and
MARCUS HOLMES, on their own behalf
and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-1580-T-30AEP

QUALITY RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 61)
and Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Dkt. 67). The Court, upon review of the
motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that Plaintiff’s
motion should be denied.
This is a case under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29
U.S.C. §2101 et seq. (the “WARN Act”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant terminated the
class members without giving sixty days’ advance notice as required under the WARN
Act.
On May 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary
judgment (Dkt. 59). Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiffs were entitled to summary

judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability.1 The Court’s Order noted: “Whether
Defendant acted in good faith is an issue for damages, which is not the subject of the
pending motion for summary judgment.” The Court also noted that a bench trial as to
damages would occur in December 2017. (Dkt. 59).
Now, Plaintiffs move for an order in limine preventing Defendant from presenting
any argument regarding the good faith defense to the WARN Act.

The motion is

deficient for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ argument is not appropriate on a motion in
limine. A motion in limine is “any motion, whether made before or during trial, to
exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v.
United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). Black’s Law Dictionary defines motion in
limine as “[a] pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or
offered at trial.” Motion in Limine, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The instant
motion does not seek to preclude “anticipated prejudicial evidence.” Rather, it is an
improper and untimely motion for summary judgment.
Second, this matter is set for a bench trial. “The rationale underlying pre-trial
motions in limine does not apply in a bench trial, where it is presumed the judge will
disregard inadmissible evidence and rely only on competent evidence.”

Singh v.

Caribbean Airlines Ltd., No. 13-20639-CIV, 2014 WL 4101544, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28,
1

Defendant’s response acknowledged that summary judgment as to liability only was appropriate
due to a “wholly technical, unintentional and good faith non-compliance with the WARN Act.” (Dkt. 58).

2

2014). When an action proceeds as a bench trial, the pretrial consideration of such
motions “weighs heavily in favor of denying the motions in limine and addressing the
issues if and when they come up at trial.” Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. CIBA
Vision Corp., 616 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2009). “The more prudent course in
a bench trial, therefore, is to resolve all evidentiary doubts in favor of admissibility.”
Singh, 2014 WL 4101544, at *1.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 61) is denied.

2.

No further motions in limine will be permitted.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 27, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

3