Violetta v. Steven Brothers Sports Management, LLC et al

Filing 173

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 154 Motion to Clarify; denying as moot 154 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 156 Motion in Limine to Exclude General Financial Information; granting 157 Motion in Limine to Exclude Impermissible Character Evidence; granting 159 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Job Performance. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 10/16/2018. (mam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

STEVEN M VIOLETTA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 16-1193-JTM

STEVEN BROS. SPORTS MGMT, LLC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Several motions are before the court. The court previously entered an Order (Dkt.
153) which addressed most of the issues in the case following the parties’ summary
judgment motions. In the first motion, plaintiff Steven Violetta has moved for
clarification, or in the alternate for reconsideration, as to the apportionment of
responsibility among the defendants. The defendants have filed no response to the
motion.
The court grants the Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 155) for good cause shown and
pursuant to D.Kan.R 7.4, and agrees and specifies that while any award of COBRA or
ERISA penalties would be limited to SBSM-A, the plaintiff may recover non-penalty
actual damages and attorneys’ fees against defendants SBBA, SBSM-A, and Genesis,
jointly and severally, with respect to his claims under COBRA and ERISA.

Defendants have submitted two motions in limine, which ask that the court bar
evidence of their general financial position (Dkt. 156) as well as impermissible character
evidence (Dkt. 157). The Plaintiff has responded that he has no intention of introducing
evidence on these issues, stating that pursuant to the court’s prior Order the case is now
restricted to (1) the failure to pay his unused vacation benefits, (2) whether the failure to
pay various expenses and bonuses was willful, and (3) whether the individual defendants
knowingly permitted SBSM to fail to make such payments.
Consistent with this understanding of the limited extent of the remaining issues,
plaintiff submitted a separate motion in limine, seeking to exclude as irrelevant any
contention that his job performance was deficient. (Dkt. 159). As with the Motion to
Clarify, defendants have not responded to Violetta’s motion in limine.
The court finds that for good cause shown and without objection the motions in
limine should be granted.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this day of October, that the plaintiff’s Motion
to Clarify (Dkt. 154) is granted (the accompanying and alternative Motion to Reconsider
is denied as moot), plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. 159) is granted; defendants’ Motions
in Limine (Dkt. 156, 57) are granted.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. Thomas Marten, Judge

2