YOUNG et al v. SMITH et al
Filing
165
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE - The Court agrees with Defendants that evidence surrounding the foreclosure action is particularly relevant to the eviction proceedings and admissible on numerous grounds. Young has not demonstrated that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or any of the other risks identified in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Young is free to cross-examine witnesses, make objections and rebut inferences regarding this evidence during trial. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Filing No. 147 ) is DENIED. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/18/2018. (NAD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SHEMECA YOUNG, RACQUEL YOUNG, and
K.W. by Next Friend, SHEMECA YOUNG,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD SMITH Deputy Constable, in his
Individual capacity, and NICK’S PACKING
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv-03395-TWP-DML
)
)
)
)
)
)
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
This matter is before the Court on a Motion in Limine (Filing No. 147) filed by Plaintiffs
Shemeca Young (“Young”), Racquel Young, and K.W. by Next Friend (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of an underlying foreclosure action involving the subject
property in this action. They request that Defendants Richard Smith (“Smith”) and Nick’s Packing
Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) be permitted to introduce only a general statement that
non-party, Jeff 1, LLC, lawfully purchased the subject property.
The Court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not
admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp.
1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings
must be deferred until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved
in context. Id. at 1400–01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that
all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial
stage, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401.
The Complaint alleges that Young was renting a property that was foreclosed,
unbeknownst to her and that Plaintiffs’ rights were violated during the eviction and seizure of their
belongings. Smith, the Pike Township Deputy Constable, executed the eviction after he was
presented with a Writ of Restitution from Jeff 1, LLC’s agent, who acquired the property following
the foreclosure action. Young contends that “referencing the Foreclose [sic] Action may lead to
confusion of the issues and may mislead the jury into believing that the Foreclosure Action gave
authority to remove the Plaintiffs from the home.” (Filing No. 147 at 2.)
In his Response to the Motion in Limine, Smith explains that he intends to prove that Young
had no right to legally occupy the residence at the time of the eviction, and that any right to occupy
that she may once have held was extinguished, as a matter of law, by a Marion Superior Court
judgment in the foreclosure action against her landlords. (Filing No. 164 at 1.) Defendants further
intend to offer evidence and a defense that Young was bound by the foreclosure judgment and an
unnamed party to the Writ.
The Court agrees with Defendants that evidence surrounding the foreclosure action is
particularly relevant to the eviction proceedings and admissible on numerous grounds. Young has
not demonstrated that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or any of the other risks identified
in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Young is free to cross-examine witnesses, make objections and
rebut inferences regarding this evidence during trial. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine
(Filing No. 147) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 7/18/2018
DISTRIBUTION:
Benjamin M. Floreancig
WUERTZ LAW OFFICE LLC
ben@wuertzlaw.com
Terrance Lamont Kinnard
KINNARD & SCOTT
tkinnard@kinnardlaw.net
Chad D. Wuertz
WUERTZ LAW OFFICE
chad@wuertzlaw.com
Lee F. Baker
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY TRIAL DIVISION
bakeL5@nationwide.com
Michael A. Bergin
m.bergin@comcast.net
Kathryn Elizabeth Ransburg
RANSBURG LAW, LLC
ransburglaw@yahoo.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?