Luv N Care Ltd v. Groupo Rimar

Filing 242

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 193 Motion in Limine to Disallow Testimony and Evidence regarding the issue of Plaintiff's filing an action in the wrong forum; granting 194 Motion in Limine regarding the issue of Plaintiffs filing an action und er LA. R.S. 51:1401, et seq, subject to the right of Suavenix to ask permission from the Court to introduce this evidence in the event the Court requests an advisory opinion from the jury on the issue of entitlement of attorneys fees. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 3/28/2018. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

LUV N’ CARE, LTD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2491

VERSUS

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

GROUPO RIMAR, AKA SUAVINEX

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Luv n’ Care, Ltd.’s (“LNC”) “Motion in Limine to
Disallow Testimony of Defendant’s Witnesses and Any Evidence at the Trial of this Matter
Regarding the Issue of Plaintiff’s Filing an Action in the Wrong Forum” [Doc. No. 193] and
“Motion in Limine to Disallow the Testimony of Defendant’s Witnesses and Any Evidence at
the Trial of this Matter Regarding the Issue of Plaintiff’s Filing an Action Under LA. R.S.
51:1401 Et Seq” [Doc. No. 194]. Defendant Groupo Rimar aka Suavinex (“Suavinex”) filed a
combined response to both motions. [Doc. No. 221].
LNC acknowledges that it did file suit in state court in error, but that it subsequently
withdrew that suit and filed the instant Complaint in Federal court, in accordance with the
provision in the 2009 Distributorship Agreement that called for any legal dispute on any breach
thereof to be in Federal Court. LNC argues “Under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, it is
respectfully submitted that to allow the introductions of the state Court filing and argue on it
being a breach of the Termination Agreement is irrelevant and also evidence that is clearly

1

prejudicial to the Plaintiff and said prejudice far outweighs the probative value.” [Doc. No. 1931, p. 3].
LNC also acknowledges that it did originally file a suit in state court under LA. R.S.
51:1401, et seq., but that it subsequently filed a motion to dismiss that claim with prejudice, once
it confirmed that Suavinex did not sell in the State of Louisiana. LNC argues that the original
filing of a claim under LA. R.S. 51:1401, et seq., doesn’t matter since it was voluntarily
dismissed, and “Under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, it is respectfully submitted that
to allow the introductions of the filing of this claim by Plaintiff is clearly irrelevant evidence
since it has absolutely nothing to do with the real issues in the lawsuit, and such an allowance is
also prejudicial to the Plaintiff which said prejudice far outweighs the probative value of
allowing this evidence in at the Trial.” [Doc. No. 194-1, p. 2].
In its combined response to these two motions, Suavinex states that, “in principal,” it
does not oppose either motion, but that “Defendant reserves its right to bring the undisputed facts
set forth in the Court’s previous rulings to the Court’s attention in briefing (or to the jury after
obtaining permission from the Court.” [Doc. No. 221, p. 2]. “These two rulings are particularly
relevant and not prejudicial with respect to the issue of which, if any, party is entitled to
attorneys’ fees…” pursuant to the 2012 Termination Agreement. [Doc. No. 221, p. 2].
Suavinex asserts that because it has prevailed on at least two of the three claims at issue, it is the
“prevailing party” as it relates to the entitlement of attorneys’ fees, whether the issue is decided
by the Court or if the Court asks for an advisory opinion from the jury. Thus, Suavinex
concludes “Defendant will not currently oppose these two motions in limine from LNC but
reserves the right to request the Court’s [sic] to make its final determinations on these original

2

claims known to the jury if in fact the Court requests that the jury provide an advisory decision
on this issue.” [Doc. No. 221, p. 3].
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that LNC’s “Motion in Limine to Disallow Testimony of Defendant’s
Witnesses and Any Evidence at the Trial of this Matter Regarding the Issue of Plaintiff’s Filing
an Action in the Wrong Forum” [Doc. No. 193] and “Motion in Limine to Disallow Testimony
of Defendant’s Witnesses and Any Evidence at the Trial of This Matter Regarding the Issue of
Plaintiff’s Filing an Action Under LA. R.S. 51:1401, et seq.” [Doc. No. 194] are GRANTED,
subject to the right of Suavenix to ask permission from the Court to introduce this evidence in
the event the Court requests an advisory opinion from the jury on the issue of entitlement of
attorneys’ fees.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 28th day of March, 2018.

TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3