Coupel et al
Filing
38
ORDER AND REASONS granting 31 Motion in Limine to preclude Allen Woodard from testifying at the show cause hearing on the motion for contempt. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: COUPEL, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
No. 16-1070
SECTION “E”
Related Case:
IN RE: COUPEL, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
No. 16-1075
SECTION “E”
Applies to: Both Cases
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion in limine to preclude Allen Woodard from testifying
at the show cause hearing on the motion for contempt filed by Appellee, Elie Kfoury.1 The
motion is opposed by the Appellants, Larry L. Coupel and Natalie A. Coupel.2
The Coupels listed Woodard on their Witness List for the contempt hearing. Kfoury
argues the Coupels intend to elicit testimony from Woodard to “improperly attack” the
2009 state court judgment finding that Kfoury possesses a predial servitude consisting of
a right of passage over the property owned by the Coupels. Stated differently, Kfoury
believes Woodard’s testimony “will be offered in an improper attempt to attack Kfoury’s
ownership of the property that [] has already [been] litigated by the parties and ruled
upon.”3
In response, the Coupels represent that they intend to call Woodard to “testify
regarding his discussions and interactions with Mr. Coupel that are germane to the
No. 16-1070, R. Doc. 29; No. 16-1075, R. Doc. 31.
No. 16-1070, R. Doc. 34; No. 16-1075, R. Doc. 36.
3 No. 16-1070, R. Doc. 29-1 at 1; No. 16-1075, R. Doc. 31-1 at 1.
1
2
1
allegations raised and asserted by Kfoury in his Motion for Contempt.”4 According to the
Coupels, Woodard “prepared a document (i.e., a Survey) for Mr. Coupel and had
discussions with Mr. Coupel regarding same that apparently have had an effect with
respect to Mr. Coupel’s mens in regard to the Order of the Bankruptcy Court.”5
The Court finds the motion in limine should be granted. The Coupels seek to have
Woodard testify with respect to Mr. Coupel’s intent and state of mind in denying Kfoury
access to the predial servitude. Such testimony is irrelevant to whether the Coupels should
be held in civil contempt for their conduct. To show that civil contempt is warranted, the
moving party must establish: “(1) that a court order was in effect, (2) that the order
required certain conduct by the respondent, and (3) that the respondent failed to comply
with the court’s order.”6 “Intent is not an element of civil contempt; the issue is whether
the alleged contemnor has complied with the court’s order.”7 Woodard’s testimony, which
the Coupels admit is useful only to show Mr. Coupel’s state of mind in denying Kfoury
access to the servitude, is irrelvant to the issues that will be decided at the civil contempt
hearing.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine is GRANTED, and Allen Woodard is
precluded from testifying at the hearing on Kfoury’s motion for contempt.
No. 16-1070, R. Doc. 34 at 1; No. 16-1075, R. Doc. 36 at 1.
No. 16-1070, R. Doc. 34 at 1; No. 16-1075, R. Doc. 36 at 1.
6 Martin v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992).
7 Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Trombetta, No. 3:13-cv-2110-P, 2016 WL 3647659, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016)
(citing Whitfield v. Pennington, 832 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir. 1987)). “[I]ntent is not an element in civil
contempt matters. Instead, the basic rule is that all orders and judgment sof courts must be complied with
promptly.” In re Unclaimed Freight of Monroe, Inc., 244 B.R. 358, 366 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1999). See also In
re Norris, 192 B.R. 863, 873 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1995) (“Intent is not an element of civil contempt.”); In re
Layer, No. 06-306, 2007 WL 2229624, at *9 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. July 31, 2007).
4
5
2
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of July, 2016.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?