Angeletti et al v. Lane et al
Filing
130
RULING and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 and 90 Motions in Limine and granting 89 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 10/9/2014. (SMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ERIC ANGELETTI
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
GERALD LANE, ET AL.
NO.: 12-00503-BAJ-SCR
RULING AND ORDER
On October 6, 2014, the undersigned held a hearing, during which the Court
heard oral argument on the pending motions in limine. (Doc. 122.) After considering
the arguments presented by counsel for both parties, the Court issued rulings from the
bench on several of the pending motions in limine, and took under advisement several
outstanding requests. After further consideration, the Court issues the following
rulings:
A.
Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Doc. 85)
1.
Defendants’ Financial Statements
District courts in this circuit have consistently held that “evidence of a
defendant’s financial worth is relevant, discoverable, and admissible at trial to
evaluate a plaintiff’s punitive damages claim.” See, e.g., Wright v. Weaver, No. 4:07-cv369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117918, at *12 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2009); Ferko v.
NASCAR, 218 F.R.D. 125, 137 (E.D. Tex. 2003) (citing cases). Under Title VII of the
Civil rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq. (“Title VII”), the maximum combined
compensatory and punitive damage award available is $300,000.00.1 42 U.S.C. §
1981a(b)(3). In contrast, compensatory and punitive damages awarded under 42
U.S.C. § 1981 are not limited under statute. Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
532 U.S. 843, 851 (2001).
However, here, Gerry Lane Buick-GMC, LLC, Gerry Lane Imports, LLC, and
Gerry Lane Automotive, LLC are not parties to the litigation. Rather, the only
remaining Defendants are Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc. and Eric Lane.2 Accordingly,
information regarding the financial worth of Gerry Lane Buick-GMC, LLC, Gerry Lane
Imports, LLC, or Gerry Lane Automotive, LLC is irrelevant.
Further, an in camera review of the documents reveals that the unconsolidated
financial statements include the value Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc.’s investments in
Gerry Lane Buick-GMC, LLC, Gerry Lane Imports, LLC, and Gerry Lane Automotive,
LLC; identify Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc.’s investments in Gerry Lane Buick-GMC,
LLC, Gerry Lane Imports, LLC, and Gerry Lane Automotive, LLC as individual
“assets”; and include the “other income” generated as a result of Gerry Lane
Enterprises, Inc.’s investments in Gerry Lane Buick-GMC, LLC and Gerry Lane
Automotive, LLC. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the unconsolidated financial
statements provide sufficient information regarding Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc.’s
1
It is unclear from the record how many employees Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc. employed in
each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or proceeding calender year. See 42 U.S.C. §
1981a(b)(3). However, under Title VII, the maximum amount Angeletti may recover is $300,000.00. 42
U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3).
2
Defendant Eric Lane is named as a Defendant in his capacity as the Representative of the
Succession of Gerald R. Lane, who died in May 2013 (Docs. 45, 49.)
2
financial worth.
As such, Defendants’ request that Plaintiff Eric Angeletti (“Angeletti”) be
prohibited from introducing Defendants’ consolidated financial statements is
GRANTED.
2.
Angeletti’s EEOC File
During the hearing on the matter, the Court ordered counsel for Angeletti to
submit those portions of Angeletti’s EEOC file that remain in dispute no later than
5:00 p.m. on October 7, 2014. (Doc. 122.) Counsel for Angeletti elected not to supply
such documents to the Court by the deadline. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
this issue has been resolved by the parties.
As such, Defendants’ request that
Angeletti be prohibited from introducing his EEOC file is DENIED AS MOOT.
3.
Whether Angeletti Properly Pled a Claim for Relief
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
During the hearing on the matter, the Court ordered counsel for both parties to
submit supplemental memoranda regarding whether Angeletti properly pled a claim
for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). After a careful review of the parties’
supplemental memoranda (Docs. 124, 125), Angeletti’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 6),
and the record in this matter, the Court concludes that Angeletti properly pled a claim
under Section 1981.
Defendants contend that Angeletti sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a
only, and did not allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. However, a review of
Angeletti’s Amended Complaint reveals multiple allegations based on subsection (a)
3
of Section 1981. (Doc. 6, ¶¶ 4, 26, 36.) Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly analyzed claims under Section 1981 when, as here, the
plaintiff’s complaint sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). See, e.g., Davis v. Dallas
Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004).
The Court also rejects Defendants’ contention that Angeletti waived his Section
1981 claim in his memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. As conceded by counsel for Defendants during the hearing on the matter,
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not address, let alone request that the
Court dismiss, Angeletti’s Section 1981 claim. Thus, Angeletti was not required to
address such claim in his memorandum in opposition.
Alternatively, Defendants contend that Angeletti waived any Section 1981 claim
against Gerald R. Lane3 in his individual capacity when he failed to oppose
Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Angeletti’s claims “under Title VII or
Louisiana law . . . against any entity or individual - other than his employer . . . .”
(Doc. 68-1, p. 7.) However, Defendants’ motion for summary did not address, let alone
request that the Court dismiss, Angeletti’s Section 1981 claim against Gerald R. Lane
in his individual capacity. Thus, Angeletti was not required to address such claim in
his memorandum in opposition. Further, it is clear from the Court’s Ruling and Order
(Doc. 104), that the Court’s ruling only relates to Angeletti’s claims under Title VII and
the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, La. R.S. § 23:301, et seq.
3
As noted above, Defendant Eric Lane is named as a Defendant in his capacity as the
Representative of the Succession of Gerald R. Lane. (Docs. 45, 49.)
4
Defendants’ contention that Angeletti waived any Section 1981 claim against
Gerald R. Lane in his individual capacity in the parties’ pretrial order is also
unavailing.
Indeed, a review of the parties’ pretrial order reveals Angeletti’s
submission that “this is an action for employment discrimination . . . under . . . 42
U.S.C. § 1981 . . .” (Doc. 77, p. 1.) As it relates to abandoned claims, Angeletti states
“Plaintiff abandoned his claims against Gerald R. Lane individually for Title VII” only.
(Doc. 77, p. 6.) Thus, it cannot be said that Angeletti waived any Section 1981 claim
against Gerald R. Lane in his individual capacity in the parties’ pretrial order.
In sum, the Court finds that Angeletti properly pled a claim for relief under
Section 1981. Accordingly, Defendants’ request that the Court prohibit Angeletti from
asserting claims under Section 1981, or introducing evidence in support thereof, is
DENIED.
B.
Angeletti’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence (Doc. 89)
After further consideration, the Court concludes that the probative value of any
evidence regarding the altercation between Angeletti and his wife is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Court further
notes that Defendants failed to present any evidence that Angeletti violated any laws
or company policies, or that he was arrested as a result of the incident. Indeed,
Defendants’ concede that Angeletti was not terminated or disciplined in any way for
his role in the incident. (Doc. 95, p.1.) Accordingly, Angeletti’s Motion in Limine
to Exclude Evidence (Doc. 89) is GRANTED.
5
C.
Angeletti’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Video Portion of
Deposition and Objectionable Portions of Audio Transcript
(Doc. 90)
During the hearing on the matter, the Court took under advisement requests
from each party that opposing counsel be prohibited from introducing certain portions
of Gerald R. Lane’s deposition.
After further consideration of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition testimony, counsels’ arguments during the hearing, the parties original and
supplemental submissions to the Court, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and relevant
case law, the Court orders as follows:
1.
Page 65, line 14 through Page 66, line 21: Defendants’ request
that Angeletti be prohibited from introducing this portion of
Gerald R. Lane’s deposition is DENIED.
2.
Page 68, lines 18-21: Defendants’ request that Angeletti be
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is DENIED.
3.
Page 71, line 14 through Page 72:9: For the first time in their
supplemental memorandum to the Court (Doc. 128), Defendants
request the Court prohibit Angeletti from introducing this portion
of Gerald R. Lane’s deposition. Such request is untimely. As such,
Defendants’ request that Angeletti be prohibited from introducing
this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s deposition is DENIED.
6
4.
Page 74, lines 3-7:
Defendants’ request that Angeletti be
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is DENIED.
5.
Page 87, lines 1-25:
Defendants’ request that Angeletti be
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is GRANTED.
6.
Page 88, lines 3-8:
Defendants’ request that Angeletti be
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is DENIED.
7.
Page 88, lines 15-25; Page 89, lines 3-25: Defendants’ request
that Angeletti be prohibited from introducing this portion of
Gerald R. Lane’s deposition is DENIED.
8.
Page 89, lines 1-2:
Defendants’ request that Angeletti be
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is DENIED.
9.
Defendants’ request that Angeletti be
Page 90, lines 1-9:
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Angeletti shall be permitted to introduce this portion of the
deposition testimony, with the exception of line 9.
7
10.
Page 123, lines 9-17: Angeletti’s request that Defendants be
prohibited from introducing this portion of Gerald R. Lane’s
deposition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 9th day of October, 2014.
______________________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
8
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?