Avakian v. Citibank N.A. et al

Filing 84

ORDER finding as moot 68 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 2/4/2014. (bkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
BURNETTE AVAKIAN
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-139-SA-DAS

CITIBANK, N.A.

DEFENDANT
ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion in Limine [68]. Defendant
seeks an order from the Court excluding from trial certain documents originally produced
by Plaintiff in response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [47].
Specifically, Defendant seeks to exclude three letters allegedly written by foreclosure
counsel, counsel for Defendant, and a title insurer regarding various title issues in this
case [49-3, 49-4, 49-5]. Plaintiff submitted these documents in support of her argument
that Defendant had waived its right to be equitably subrogated to an earlier lien against
the subject property.
Defendant contends these documents cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible in evidence and further argues:
these letters are nothing more than the notifications and responses between
representatives of the insured lender and the insurer as to coverage and
claims issues, and contain the mental impressions of foreclosure counsel,
counsel for the Defendant and the title insurer, none of which are relevant
to the issues currently before this Court.
Defendant previously raised these same arguments in its Objection to Certain of
Plaintiff’s Exhibits [52] filed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2). In its
Memorandum Opinion [80] dated January 30, 2014, the Court found the doctrine of
equitable subrogation inapplicable to the case at bar on other grounds and therefore found

Defendant’s objection moot.

Further, the Court found the only genuine dispute of

material fact to be whether Plaintiff and her husband were living together at the time of
the deed of trust at issue. It is on this sole issue that this matter proceeds to trial.
Whereas the issues to which these documents relate have been resolved and do
not remain for trial, the Court finds Defendant’s Motion in Limine [68] is MOOT.
Should Plaintiff seek to introduce these documents at trial, Defendant may renew its
objections at that time.
SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of February, 2014.
_/s/ Sharion Aycock________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2