Lee Swimming Pools, LLC v. Bay Pool Company Construction, LLC et al

Filing 129

ORDER denying 124 Motion in Limine; denying 126 Motion in Limine Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 02/04/2021 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEE SWIMMING POOLS, LLC, f/k/a
BAY POOL COMPANY, LLC
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:18CV118-LG-RPM

BAY POOL COMPANY
CONSTRUCTION, LLC

DEFENDANT

v.
LEE SWIMMING POOLS, LLC, f/k/a
BAY POOL COMPANY, LLC
BAY POOL COMPANY
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and ADAM
LANDRUM

COUNTER-DEFENDANT
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS

v.
JOEL LEE, individually and as the
agent/member of LEE SWIMMING
POOLS, LLC; ISLAND VIEW
POOLS, LLC; and JOEL
BUCHANAN, individually and as
the agent/member of ISLAND VIEW
POOLS, LLC

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
BEFORE THE COURT are a [124] Motion in Limine Regarding Damages
and a [126] Motion in Limine to Prohibit Expert Testimony, both filed by Plaintiff
Lee Swimming Pools, LLC and Third-Party Defendant Joel Lee (“Lee Parties”).
After due consideration of the Motions and the relevant law, it is the Court’s opinion
that the Motions are unnecessary and should be denied.

This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff Lee Swimming Pools, LLC sold
the assets of Bay Pool Company, LLC to Bay Pool Company Construction, LLC
(“BPCC”) for $200,000 in February 2016. The contract provided for a $50,000 down
payment, with the remaining $150,000 to be paid by monthly payments calculated
from monthly sales and supplier rewards. Lee Swimming Pools alleges in its [3]
Amended Complaint that BPCC stopped making payments in August 2017, when
the outstanding balance was $96,988.10. BPCC and its managing member, Adam
Landrum, have filed a [8] Counterclaim against Lee Swimming Pools, LLC. BPCC
and Landrum later brought a [24] Third-Party Complaint against Joel Lee, Island
View Pools, LLC (“Island View”), and its sole member Joel Buchanan.
The record reflects that the parties have consented to a bench trial in this
matter. (See Text-Only Order, Nov. 4, 2020). Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, Lee
Swimming Pools, filed the instant Motions in Limine on February 3, 2021. In its
first [124] Motion in Limine, the Lee Parties ask the Court to exclude evidence of
damages which Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs have allegedly failed to produce in
discovery. In the second [126] Motion, it asks the Court to preclude
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs from calling experts which have not been designated
in accordance with Rule 26. Third-party defendants Joel Buchanan and Island
View Pools have [127] joined both Motions.
Because this matter is set for a bench trial, the Court finds that these
Motions in Limine “are unnecessary, as the Court can and does readily exclude from
its consideration inappropriate evidence of whatever ilk.” Cramer v. Sabine Transp.

-- 2 --

Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 727, 733 (S.D. Tex. 2001). “Without a jury, . . . motions in
limine . . . serve no real purpose.” Morgan v. Miss., No. 2:07CV15-MTP, 2009 WL
3259233, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 8, 2009) (citing 75 Am. Jur.2d Trial § 45 (West 2009)
and Fed. R. Evid. 103(c)); see also Enniss Family Realty I, LLC v. Schneider Nat’l
Carriers, Inc., No. 3:11CV739-KTS-MTP, 2013 WL 28284, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 2,
2013) (citing Cramer, 141 F. Supp. 2d at 733 and O’Rear v. Fruehauf Corp., 554
F.2d 1304, 1306 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977)). Rather, “[t]he Court will address the
admissibility of the parties’ evidentiary submissions upon any objection properly
raised at trial.” Enniss Family Realty, 2013 WL 28284, at *1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [124] [126]
Motions in Limine are DENIED. The parties will be permitted to make objections
at trial.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of February, 2021.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-- 3 --