HEARTS WITH HAITI INC et al v. KENDRICK

Filing 421

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 358 Motion in Limine to Exclude References or Testimony Concerning Alleged Suffering of Innocent Children Caused by the Defendant. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HEARTS WITH HAITI, INC. and
MICHAEL GEILENFELD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PAUL KENDRICK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-00039-JAW

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
REFERENCES OR TESTIMONY CONCERNING ALLEGED SUFFERING
OF INNOCENT CHILDREN CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT
With trial scheduled to begin next week in this highly contentious action, the
Defendant moves in limine to exclude any references or testimony concerning the
alleged suffering of innocent Haitian children caused by the Defendant, unless the
Court approves of such testimony outside the presence of the jury. The Court grants
the motion to the extent that the Plaintiff may not bring a claim on behalf of the
residents of his business or Haitian children generally. The Court denies the motion
to the extent that the Plaintiff may attempt to obtain damages caused to his
unincorporated business as a result of the Defendant’s actions.
I.

BACKGROUND
Over the last several years, Paul Kendrick has made numerous accusations

against Michael Geilenfeld to various third parties, claiming that Mr. Geilenfeld is a
child molester and that he has been sexually abusing children during his time as
Executive Director of St. Joseph Family of Haiti. See Order Denying Def.’s Mot. for

Partial Summ. J. at 4-42 (ECF No. 237) (Order) (recounting numerous examples of
Mr. Kendrick’s communications). According to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, St. Joseph
Family of Haiti “operates a network of nonprofit institutions that provide residence,
room and board, formal education, and religious education to disabled and
disadvantaged Haitian children.” Verified Compl. and Demand for Jury Trial ¶ 7
(ECF No. 1).

In his Recommended Decision dated September 30, 2013, the

Magistrate Judge quoted the Plaintiffs’ representation that St. Joseph Family of
Haiti “is simply the name under which Geilenfeld carries out his religious mission in
Haiti.” Recommended Decision on Mots. to Dismiss and Mem. Decision on Mots. to
Stay Disc., to Seal, to File a Substitute Doc., to Exceed Page Limits, to Strike, and to
Extend Disc. at 9 (ECF No. 73) (Rec. Dec.) (quoting Pls.’ Objection and Mem. in Opp’n
to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl. Michael Geilenfeld ‘In His Capacity as Exec. Director of
St. Joseph Family of Haiti on Behalf of St. Joseph Family of Haiti and its Residents’
at 5) (ECF No. 56) (Pls.’ 2013 Opp’n)). In their July 22, 2013 memorandum, the
Plaintiffs revealed that St. Joseph Family of Haiti is “an unincorporated Haitian
organization.” Pls.’ 2013 Opp’n at 2.
The corporate Plaintiff in this case, Hearts With Haiti, Inc. (HWH), is a
substantial financial contributor to St. Joseph Homes, and solicits and accepts
donations throughout the United States. Order at 4. Mr. Kendrick has accused HWH
of funding Mr. Geilenfeld’s alleged sexual abuse, and of essentially turning a blind
eye despite knowing that Mr. Geilenfeld was sexually abusing children. See id. at 442.

2

II.

THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
A.

Defendant’s Motion

On June 12, 2015, Mr. Kendrick moved in limine to exclude
any reference or testimony in the presence of the jury concerning alleged
hardships, plights, suffering, or the like, of St. Joseph Family of Haiti
and its homes, schools, and dance troupe (collectively hereinafter “St.
Joseph Family”) and/or the children allegedly served by or cared for by
St. Joseph Family, without first obtaining the permission of the Court
outside the hearing of the jury.
Def.’s Mot. in Limine to Exclude References or Test. Concerning Alleged Suffering of
Innocent Children Caused by the Def. at 1 (ECF No. 358). In support of his motion,
Mr. Kendrick argues that St. Joseph Family and Haitian children are not parties in
this case, the Plaintiffs do not have standing to represent their interests, and the
Court has ruled as much in prior orders. Id. He also contends that any such reference
or testimony should be excluded under Rules 401 and 403. Id. at 1-2 (citing Herrin
v. Ensco Offshore Co., No. Civ.A. 00-3051, 2002 WL 465199, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 25,
2002)). In his view, Plaintiffs should be precluded from “try[ing] to inflame the
passions of the jury against Mr. Kendrick with a parade of horribles of innocent
children alleged to have been harmed by Mr. Geilenfeld’s or [HWH]’s loss of support
from donors or otherwise.” Id. at 2. Mr. Kendrick acknowledges, however, that “some
testimony as to the position and function of Mr. Geilenfeld with St. Joseph Family is
necessary for the jury to make sense of the case, and that some testimony as to the
purpose and operations of [HWH] is also necessary.” Id.

3

B.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiffs responded in opposition. Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’s
Mot. in Limine to Exclude Reference or Test. Concerning Alleged Suffering of Innocent
Children Caused by the Def. (ECF No. 398). First, Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kendrick
misinterprets the Court’s prior orders as to Mr. Geilenfeld’s ability to “obtain
damages caused to St. Joseph Family of Haiti” and, in fact, says the Court “held just
the opposite.”

Id. at 1-2.

Those orders, the Plaintiffs contend, held that Mr.

Geilenfeld “may recover damages caused to St. Joseph Family of Haiti but must do
so in his own name and not ‘on behalf of’ St. Joseph Family of Haiti.” Id. at 2.
Second, the Plaintiffs assert that it was foreseeable to Mr. Kendrick, as well as
intentional, that his actions would cause harm to Mr. Geilenfeld’s “charitable
operations in Haiti” and therefore, Mr. Geilenfeld is entitled to damages for such
harm caused. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs provide some examples of such harm they intend to
introduce at trial, and note that while this evidence is prejudicial to Mr. Kendrick, it
is not unfairly prejudicial within the meaning of Rule 403. Id. They also argue that
the case relied upon by Mr. Kendrick in his motion is distinguishable. Id. at 3-4.
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Prior Court Orders

On September 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommended decision regarding a host of issues, and this Court affirmed that
decision in all respects on October 22, 2013.

Rec. Dec.; Order Affirming the

Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84).

4

The Magistrate Judge addressed Mr. Kendrick’s contention in a motion to
dismiss that Mr. “Geilenfeld cannot bring suit on behalf of the St. Joseph Family of
Haiti or its resident[s], who must be named as parties themselves in order to seek
relief.” Rec. Dec. at 8. The Magistrate Judge observed that the caselaw provided by
Plaintiffs to counter Mr. Kendrick’s position “merely holds that an individual may
seek damages caused to his unincorporated business. They do not hold that the
individual may sue ‘on behalf of’ that business. Nothing prevents Geilenfeld from
obtaining damages caused to his business, but he must do so in his own name.” Id.
at 9. In conclusion, the Magistrate Judge held that the motion to dismiss “should be
granted to the extent that Geilenfeld purports to seek relief on behalf of others.” Id.
at 10.
B.

Analysis

The Court agrees with Mr. Kendrick to the extent he argues that Plaintiffs do
not have standing to sue on behalf of St. Joseph Family of Haiti residents or Haitian
children generally. This is consistent with what the Magistrate Judge ruled in 2013.
Id. at 9-10 (“With respect to the residents of any St. Joseph Family of Haiti
institutions, those are identifiable individual human beings, and they cannot be
represented by other, non-lawyer individuals in actions in federal court, nor can they
remain unidentified.

To the extent that some of these residents are minors,

Geilenfeld can sue on their behalf only if he is their parent or legal guardian”).
However, the Court disagrees with Mr. Kendrick to the extent he argues that
evidence of alleged damages to St. Joseph Family of Haiti as a result of Mr. Kendrick’s

5

conduct is inadmissible under Rules 401 and 403 for purposes of showing damage to
Mr. Geilenfeld’s business and that it was Mr. Kendrick’s intention to cause such
damage.1 This is consistent with prior rulings in this Court and the Maine Law
Court. See id. at 9 (“Nothing prevents Geilenfeld from obtaining damages caused to
his business, but he must do so in his own name”); Haworth v. Feigon, 623 A.2d 150,
159 (Me. 1993) (upholding jury award where plaintiff presented evidence of, among
other things, “a variance between the volume of business he expected and the amount
of business he actually did in the years immediately following” a project he worked
on for defendants); Ramirez v. Rogers, 540 A.2d 475, 478 (Me. 1988) (“The evidence
warranted a finding, not only that the words adversely affected Ramirez’s business,
but that this was Rogers’ intention”). Mr. Kendrick’s concern that the jury will be
confused as to who is a party in this case may be addressed by a limiting instruction
to the jury, but he must propose one.
The Court also concludes that the case relied upon by Mr. Kendrick in support
of his motion is unhelpful. In Herrin, the plaintiff sued his employer under a theory
of negligence pursuant to federal law, and “unseaworthiness under the general
maritime law. He [sought] general and special damages, including compensation for
physical and mental pain and suffering, and past and future lost wages.” 2002 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 5744, at *1. The plaintiff attempted to bring into evidence the fact that
he could not afford to pay the medical expenses of his daughter, who suffered from

This dispute may just be semantics. Mr. Geilenfeld may not bring a claim on behalf of St.
Joseph Family of Haiti because this entity has no independent legal identity. However, assuming he
is able to establish that he owns and runs St. Joseph Family of Haiti as an unincorporated business,
he is authorized to make a claim for damages to his business.
1

6

multiple sclerosis, for purposes of proving that his inability to support her
“contributes to his mental pain and suffering.” Id. at *2. The Herrin Court held that
this evidence was irrelevant to the “issues of plaintiff’s entitlement to damages,” and
even if it was relevant, should be excluded under Rule 403 because “this type of
evidence will likely confuse the jury, particularly considering its emotional impact. .
. . The proffered evidence could confuse the jury by causing them to conclude that
defendant is liable to pay plaintiff enough to pay for the needs of his adult daughter.”
Id. at *2-3. Here, however, the issue is relevant to Mr. Geilenfeld’s entitlement to
damages, and the jury can consider whether Mr. Kendrick is liable to Mr. Geilenfeld
for any damages caused to his business, St. Joseph Family of Haiti.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant’s Motion in

Limine to Exclude References or Testimony Concerning Alleged Suffering of Innocent
Children Caused by the Defendant (ECF No. 358). To the extent the Plaintiffs
attempt to assert claims on behalf of St. Joseph Family of Haiti, its residents, or
Haitian children generally, the Court GRANTS the motion.

To the extent Mr.

Geilenfeld attempts to present evidence that his business was damaged as a result of
Mr. Kendrick’s actions, the Court DENIES the motion.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of July, 2015

7