McFarlin v. New Hampshire Insurance Co et al

Filing 135

RULING re 112 MOTION in Limine filed by Rickey McFarlin, and 113 JOINT MOTION in Limine filed by Gemini Insurance Co, Dethmers Manufacturing Co. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/9/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

RICKEY MCFARLIN

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3033

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.,
ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

RULING
This is a personal injury and products liability action. Plaintiff Rickey McFarlin (“McFarlin”)
has sued Defendants Lee Allen Wyffels (“Wyffels”); Dealer’s Choice Truckaway System, Inc.
(“Dealer’s Choice”); Dethmers Manufacturing Co., individually and doing business as Demco
Products (“Demco”); and Gemini Insurance Co. (“Gemini”) for damages he allegedly suffered as
the result of an automobile accident.1
Pending before the Court are McFarlin’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 112] and Demco and
Gemini’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 113]. For the following reasons McFarlin’s Motion in Limine
is GRANTED. Demco and Gemini’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts have been discussed at length in this Court’s multiple summary judgment rulings.

The factual recitation from the Court’s more recent Ruling is incorporated herein. See [Doc. No.

1

McFarlin has settled his case with Wyffels and Dealer’s Choice. However, they have
refused to file a motion to dismiss. These Defendants are the subject of a pending Motion to
Drop Parties pursuant to Rule 21 [Doc. No. 117]. McFarlin filed no opposition to that motion,
likely because Demco has stipulated that it will not raise an objection related to prescription.

110].
Procedurally, this Court has granted summary judgment on McFarlin’s Louisiana Products
Liability Act, LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.51 et seq.,(“LPLA”) claims for manufacturing defect, design
defect, and inadequate warning. A breach of express warranty claim is all that remains. On July 1,
2016, both McFarlin and Demco and Gemini filed motions in limine in anticipation of trial in this
matter, set for August 29, 2016 [Doc. Nos. 112 & 113]. Demco and Gemini did not file an
opposition to McFarlin’s Motion. McFarlin filed an opposition to Demco and Gemini’s Motion
[Doc. No. 127]. Demco and Gemini then filed a reply [Doc. No. 129].
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A.

McFarlin’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 112]

McFarlin has filed a motion in limine to prohibit Defendants from presenting, introducing,
or referencing the following evidence at trial in this matter:
1.

McFarlin’s business profits and losses;

2.

McFarlin’s personal or business tax returns;

3.

McFarlin’s criminal convictions or guilty pleas;

4.

McFarlin’s prior traffic citations;

5.

McFarlin’s prior lawsuits for credit card debt; and

6.

McFarlin’s prior bankruptcy filings.

Defendants did not file any opposition to this motion. Because the motion is unopposed, and
because the Court finds it meritorious, McFarlin’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED. See, e.g,
Esparza v. Cloonan, 00-27, 2002 WL 34364149 at *1 (W.D. Tex. March 8, 2002) (granting motions
in limine as unopposed); Estate of Wilson v. Mariner Health Care, Inc., 2:07cv55, 2008 WL

2

5255819 at *1 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 16, 2008) (same); Capatotta v. Entergy Corp., 94-3051, 1996 WL
411605 at *1 (E.D. La. July 19, 1996) (same).
B.

Demco and Gemini’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 113].

Demco and Gemini have also filed a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence from trial.
1.

The Origin of the Safety Cables, Tow bar, and Coupler

Demco and Gemini ask the Court to exclude any evidence that the safety cables, tow bar,
and/or coupler at issue were made in China, claiming such evidence is irrelevant to whether the
products failed to conform to an express warranty. McFarlin claims the place of manufacture is
relevant for two reasons. First, the LPLA requires McFarlin to establish that Demco either
manufactured the cables or held itself out to be their manufacturer. Therefore, McFarlin claims he
must show the cables were manufactured in China, but that Demco held itself out as their
manufacturer. Second, McFarlin claims that he will have to prove that the safety cables were rated
by Demco for use with towed loads weighing up to 14,000 pounds. McFarlin claims that Demco
created this “express warranty,” in part, using testing data from the Chinese manufacturing company.
The Court is not persuaded by these arguments. First, Demco has already stipulated–indeed,
this Court granted summary judgment on the issue–that it held itself out as the manufacturer of the
safety cables. See [Doc. Nos. 93 & 94]. Thus, no further proof is needed on that issue. Second, how
Demco came up with the warranty is of dubious relevance. Even if it was relevant, the location of
the company which provided the testing data is an unnecessary and irrelevant detail. Accordingly,
to the extent Demco and Gemini seek to exclude evidence that the safety cables, tow bar, and/or
coupler were originally manufactured in China, their Motion in Limine is GRANTED.

3

2.

Evidence that the Tow Bar and Coupler Failed

Demco and Gemini next argue that it would be unduly prejudicial to allow McFarlin to argue
the tow bar and/or coupler failed because there has been no evidence of failure. However, as the
Court discussed in its Ruling and Judgment on Demco’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos.
110 &111], in the express warranty context, if the products failed to live up to a manufacturer’s
promise, then they failed. The Court will allow McFarlin’s counsel to make that argument. Demco
and Gemini can address any concerns about this phraseology through argument. Accordingly, to the
extent Demco and Gemini seek to exclude any reference or evidence that the tow bar and/or coupler
failed to live up to any express warranty made as to those products, their Motion in Limine is
DENIED.
III.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, McFarlin’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED in its entirety. Demco and

Gemini’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent Demco
and Gemini seek to exclude evidence that the safety cables, tow bar, and/or coupler were originally
manufactured in China, the motion is GRANTED. The motion is otherwise DENIED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 9th day of August, 2016.

4