C & J of Crown Point, L.L.C. v. Singleton et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying 110 Motion in Limine; denying 111 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/30/14. (jrc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES FOR THE USE
AND BENEFIT OF C & J OF
CROWN POINT, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-0857

WAYNE A. SINGLETON, et al.

SECTION: "A" (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Motion in
Limine to Limit Liability as Miller Act Surety (Rec. Doc. 110),
filed by Great American Insurance Company ("Great American"); (2)
Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 111), filed by Crown Point Investments,
L.L.C. ("Crown Point").

Both motions are opposed and are before

the Court on the briefs, without oral argument.

A three-day bench

trial in this matter is currently set for February 18, 2014.
Great American has filed a Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 110) to
limit its potential liability as a Miller Act Surety.

Great

American contends that the Miller Act provides the only legal basis
for C&J of Crown Point, L.L.C.'s ("C&J") claims against Great
American in this matter.

Great American moves for the Court to

limit the evidence admissible at trial pertaining to C&J's Miller
Act claims.
Great American contends that the work that C&J performed,
giving rise to their claims, took place in the months of April and
May of 2010.

Great American argues that since liability under the

Miller Act is limited to the amount due for the work performed, the
evidence pertaining to C&J's Miller Act claim should be limited to
the time period during which the work was actually performed.
Great American seeks to exclude evidence from March of 2010, during
which time C&J's equipment was on the work site, but was immobile
and not in use.
C&J opposes the Motion in Limine, arguing that the Miller Act
is a statute that courts construe broadly.

C&J cites case law

allowing recovery under the Miller Act for the labor and materials
used to perform work specified in a contract.

C&J argues that it

is entitled to recovery of expenses incurred before and after the
time frame during which work was actually performed, and so the
evidence should not be limited in the manner Great American
requests.
Crown Point has filed a Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 111) Great
American's Motion in Limine.

Crown Point argues that Great

American's motion seeks to limit liability rather than to exclude
any

testimony

or

evidence.

Crown

Point

argues

that

Great

American's motion is not a true motion in limine, but is an
untimely dispositive motion.

Crown Point moves for the Court to

strike Great American's motion on this basis.
The Court finds that although the caption of Great American's
Motion in Limine is misleading, in that its stated purpose is to
limit liability, the actual purpose of the motion is to limit which
evidence may be presented at trial.
2

Thus, the motion, brought as

a motion in limine, is procedurally correct.

For this reason,

Crown Point's Motion to Strike is DENIED.
Having determined that Great American's motion is procedurally
correct, the Court now reviews the merits of the motion.

In

keeping with the Fifth Circuit's liberal construction of the Miller
Act,1 the Court refuses to limit the evidence in the manner
requested.

The Court will be in a better position to assess the

parties' arguments pertaining to the extent of liability under the
Miller Act after trial on the merits.

These arguments can be

re-urged in the pre and/or post-trial briefing, which the Court
will order parties to submit in conjunction with the bench trial.
For these reasons, Great American's Motion in Limine is DENIED.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Crown Point Investments, L.L.C.'s Motion to
Strike (Rec. Doc. 111) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Great American Insurance Company's
Motion in Limine to Limit Liability as Miller Act Surety (Rec. Doc.
110) is hereby DENIED.
January 30, 2014
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Boyd Callan, Inc. v. U.S. for Use of Steves Indus., Inc.,
328 F.2d 505, 512 (5th Cir. 1964) (citing Illinois Surety Co. v.
John Davis Co., 244 U.S. 376, 378 (1917)). ("[The Miller Act]
must be construed liberally in order to effectuate the purpose of
Congress.")
3