Braintech, Incorporated v. Shafi

Filing 116

ORDER Denying 109 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ADIL SHAFI.,
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Counter-Plaintiff/ Third Party Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-10454
v.
FREDERICK WEIDINGER and
BRAINTECH, INC.,
Third Party Defendant/ Counter-Defendant.
____________________________________________/

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Shafi’s Amended Motion in Limine to preclude
Braintech from raising any issues in defense of Shafi’s employment claims which were
raised in Braintech’s previously dismissed complaint. (Doc. 109). Shafi says the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel preclude Braintech
from asserting any of the claims or allegations in the dismissed complaint in defense to
Shafi’s Employment Agreement claim. The Court disagrees.
A jury must decide whether Shafi’s conduct constituted “good cause.” The
Employment Agreement includes Shafi’s “willful and continued failure” to perform his job
duties, gross misconduct, fraud, misappropriation, and dishonesty in its definition of
“good cause.” The Court sees no reason why the jury is not entitled to consider
Braintech’s evidence or arguments that Shafi made false statements and
misrepresentations, or failed to fully perform his employment responsibilities, in deciding
this issue.
1

Moreover, because Shafi fails to make arguments for the preclusion of specific
evidence or defenses which Braintech might seek to introduce, the Court will not parse
through Braintech’s complaint to determine what, if anything, should be precluded.
Shafi lumps all of the evidence and defenses referenced in Braintech’s complaint
together. While it may be true that certain evidence Braintech wishes to put before the
jury is inadmissible, the Court has no way of determining that from Shafi’s motion. The
Court declines to make arguments on Shafi’s behalf.
Finally, Shafi’s request that the Court “exercise its discretion and refuse to permit
Braintech to assert any defense in this case,” is not well taken. The litigation taking
place in Virginia is of little concern to this Court; the issues raised by Shafi must be
decided in Virginia.
Shafi’s motion in limine is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 20, 2011
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 20,
2011.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

2