North Shore Lodging LLC v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Filing
53
Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Jane Triche Milazzo: Final Pretrial Conference held on 6/26/2014. Due to a conflict in the Court's schedule, the Court ORDERED that the jury trial in this matter is CONTINUED AND RESET on July 2 8, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. The Court GRANTED IN PART Defendant's 43 Motion in Limine and DENIED 22 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and 52 Motion to Stay, for reasons set forth in document. (ecm) Modified file date on 6/27/2014 (ecm).
MINUTE ENTRY
MILAZZO, J.
June 26, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NORTH SHORE LODGING, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13‐6070
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS. CO.
SECTION: “H”(5)
MINUTE ENTRY
On June 26, 2014 the Court held a final pretrial conference. Tom Huval participated on
behalf of Plaintiff, and Sherman Boughton participated on behalf of Defendant. Due to a conflict
in the Court's schedule, the Court ORDERED that the jury trial in this matter is CONTINUED AND
RESET on July 28, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. The Court DENIED the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) and
the Motion to Stay (Doc. 52) for the reasons stated at the conference. The Court also GRANTED
IN PART Defendant's Motion in limine (Doc. 43) as follows:
•
Defendant requested that the Court exclude any evidence related to the manner
in which other unrelated insurance claims are handled. The Court GRANTED this
request. However, evidence of habit or routine practice under Fed. R. Evid. 406 will
be permitted upon the laying of appropriate foundation.
•
Defendant requested that the Court exclude an appraisal it conducted but does not
intend to use and preclude Plaintiff's expert from offering a critique of the appraisal.
1
The Court GRANTED IN PART this request. Plaintiff will be permitted to introduce
evidence of the appraisal to the extent it is relevant to the claim handling time‐line.
However, Plaintiff will not be permitted to offer extrinsic evidence related to the
competency of the appraisal unless testimony at trial opens the door to such
evidence.
•
Defendant moved to exclude a document on hearsay grounds and argued that
Plaintiff cannot lay appropriate foundation for the business records exception. The
Court deferred ruling on this objection until trial.
•
Defendant moved to exclude testimony regarding the value of the Holiday Inn
Express Franchise. To the extent that this evidence can be admitted following the
appropriate foundation, the Court DENIED the request.
•
Defendant moved to exclude any evidence of the failure of the title examiner to
discover the servitude at issue. The Court GRANTED IN PART this request. The jury
will be permitted to hear evidence regarding the fact that the servitude was not
discovered prior to the sale. However, any arguments that the failure is relevant
to the manner in which Defendant handled the claim will not be permitted.
•
Defendant moved to exclude any statements by a representative of Plaintiff that
the property is unsuitable for other uses. The Court GRANTED IN PART this request.
Plaintiff will be permitted to offer evidence that the property was not suitable for
Plaintiff's intended purpose. Plaintiff will not be permitted to offer lay opinion
testimony that the property was not suitable for any purpose.
2
•
Defendant moved to exclude evidence of discussions between counsel for the
parties regarding the appropriate dates to use for the appraisal. Plaintiff did not
oppose this request. Accordingly, this portion of the Motion was GRANTED.
•
Defendant moved to exclude some testimony of certain witnesses on hearsay
grounds. The Court GRANTED IN PART this request. No inadmissible hearsay
testimony will be permitted.
•
Defendant moved to exclude any lay opinions regarding the interpretation of the
insurance policy. The Court GRANTED this request.
•
Defendant asked the Court to preclude Plaintiff from making arguments related to
Defendant's size or assets. Plaintiff did not oppose this request. Accordingly, this
portion of the Motion was GRANTED.
•
Defendant asks the Court to preclude Plaintiff from asking jurors to put themselves
in Plaintiff's shoes. Plaintiff did not oppose this request. Accordingly, this portion
of the Motion was GRANTED.
_____
(JS‐10: 65)
3
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?