Fairchild v. All American Check Cashing, Inc.
Filing
170
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 150 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Financial Damages; and granting Defendant's 152 Motion in Limine to Exclude Discussion of Investigation. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 3, 2014 (dsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
AMBREA FAIRCHILD
V.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-92-KS-MTP
ALL-AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INC.
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendant’s Motion in Limine [150] to Exclude Evidence of Financial Damages, and
grants Defendant’s Motion in Limine [152] to Exclude Discussion of Investigation.
A.
Financial Damages [150]
Plaintiff failed to timely produce certain documents responsive to Defendant’s
discovery requests and relevant to the issue of Plaintiff’s alleged financial damages.
She provided the documents to Defendant four weeks after the discovery deadline, on
the eve of the motions deadline. Defendant filed a Motion to Preclude [79] Plaintiff’s
reliance upon the documents on dispositive motions or at trial. Plaintiff notified the
Court that she did not intend to rely on the documents, and the Court granted [91] the
motion as unopposed.
Defendant now argues that Plaintiff may not offer any evidence of “financial
stress” that occurred after her termination because such evidence is “inextricably tied”
to the excluded documents. In response, Plaintiff argues that although she does not
intend to rely on the excluded documents, she may rely on other evidence – such as her
own testimony and any other evidence disclosed during discovery – to support her
claim that termination caused her to suffer “emotional/financial distress.”
Defendant cited no authority in support of its argument that Plaintiff must have
financial documentation – tax returns, banking records, utility and mortgage
statements, etc. – to support a claim for emotional damages arising from financial
stress after termination. As the Court previously noted, the Fifth Circuit has upheld
significant emotional/mental damage awards based on nothing but a plaintiff’s
testimony. Fairchild v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-92-KS-MTP, 23 Wage
& Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 427, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113653, at *13 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 15,
2014) (citing multiple cases). In the absence of binding and/or persuasive authority to
the contrary, Plaintiff may present her own testimony and any other previously
disclosed evidence regarding her alleged “emotional/financial distress.”
Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion in Limine [150] to Exclude
Evidence of Financial Damages with respect to the specific documents already
addressed in the Court’s Order [91] of June 3, 2014, but the Court denies it in all other
respects.
B.
Investigation [152]
Defendant is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Mississippi
Department of Banking and Consumer Finance into violations of various payday
lending statutes. Defendant argues that any evidence or argument regarding this
investigation should be excluded from trial because it is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims,
and would be more prejudicial than probative. In response, Plaintiff claims that the
2
investigation concerns illegal fees charged to Defendant’s customers which provide the
basis for bonuses paid to its employees. Plaintiff argues that the investigation is
relevant because Defendant contends that Plaintiff qualified for the “administrative
capacity” exemption from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirements, see 29
U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), and one factor in determining whether an employee qualifies for the
exemption is their level of compensation. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.200.
Plaintiff’s compensation is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, but
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the investigation is relevant. Even if Plaintiff
received bonuses derived from illegal fees, the illegality of the fees has no bearing on
the factual question of her compensation. The probative value of such evidence is
greatly outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. FED. R. EVID. 403. The Court
grants Defendant’s Motion in Limine [152] to Exclude Discussion of Investigation.
C.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s
Motion in Limine [150] to Exclude Evidence of Financial Damages, and grants
Defendant’s Motion in Limine [152] to Exclude Discussion of Investigation.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 3rd day of December, 2014.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?