Carolina Cargo Inc of Rock Hill v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Solutions Inc

Filing 80

ORDER denying 76 Plaintiff's First Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer on 8/24/2018. See attached document for full details. (pb00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 18-60630-CIV-MORENO/SELTZER
CAROLINA CARGO, INC. OF ROCK HILL,
Plaintiff ,
vs.
COUNTRYWIDE PAYROLL & HR
SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a Countrywide HR,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (No. 1)
[DE 76]. The District Court has referred all pretrial matters to the undersigned for
appropriate disposition or recommendation [DE 56]. Plaintiff seeks an order excluding
testimony regarding the statutory definition or meaning of a “professional employer
organization” or “professional employer services” or whether Defendant’s operations are
governed by or subject to any applicable statutes or laws concerning “professional
employer organizations” or “professional employer services.” Defendant opposes the
motion.
The Court identifies two problems with Plaintiff’s motion in limine. First, the issue
of statutory compliance is a central issue in the case; in fact, Plaintiff’s specific claim is that
Defendant was not licensed as required by the State of South Carolina [DE 1]. Second,
this is a non-jury trial. The Court, therefore, is the finder of fact and ruler of the law.
Plaintiff’s motion would withhold from the Court precisely the information that it needs to
resolve the case. A motion in limine is not appropriate in these circumstances:

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. Id. In fact, courts are advised to deny motions in
limine in non-jury cases. See 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2411 (3d ed.2008).
When ruling on motions in limine, a court is forced to
determine the admissibility of evidence without the benefit of
the context of trial. See LaConner Assocs. Ltd. Liab. Co. v.
Island Tug and Barge Co., No. C07–175RSL, 2008 WL
2077948, at *2 (W.D.Wash. May 15, 2008); Rettiger v. IBP,
Inc., No. 96–4015–SAC, 1999 WL 318153, at * 1 (D.Kan.
Jan.6, 1999) (recognizing that a court is almost always better
situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of
evidence). The more prudent course in a bench trial, therefore,
is to resolve all evidentiary doubts in favor of admissibility. See
Commerce Funding Corp. v. Comprehensive Habilitation
Servs., Inc., No. 01 Civ 3796(PKL), 2004 WL 1970144, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2004).

Singh v. Caribbean Airlines Ltd., 2014 WL 4101544, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2014). The
District Court is well-equipped to determine at trial what evidence it will and will not receive
or consider. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (No. 1) [DE 78] is
DENIED subject to rulings by the District Court at the time of trial.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 24th day of
August 2018.

Copies furnished via CM/ECF to:
Hon. Federico Moreno
and counsel of record
2