Regions Commercial Equipment Finance, LLC v. Performance Aviation, LLC et al

Filing 106

ORDER denying 98 Motion in Limine; denying 101 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 7/14/2017 (dtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
REGIONS COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT
FINANCE, LLC
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-110-KS-JCG

PERFORMANCE AVIATION, LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court discussed the background of this case in prior opinions. See, e.g.
Regions Commercial Equip. Fin., LLC v. Performance Aviation, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-110KS-JCG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96658 (S.D. Miss. July 22, 2016); Regions Commercial
Equip. Fin., LLC v. Performance Aviation, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-110-KS-JCG, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 154782 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 8, 2016). Each side of this dispute filed a Motion
in Limine [98, 101]. For the reasons provided below, the Court denies both
Defendants’ Motion in Limine [98] and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [101].
A.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine [98]
1.

Election of Remedy

First, Defendants argue that the Court should prevent Plaintiff from revoking
its elected remedy and seeking money damages rather than possession of the unsold
aircraft.
Defendants do not seek an evidentiary ruling. Rather, they seek a dispositive
ruling as to a specific remedy and/or element of damages. “The purpose of a motion in
limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and

relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” Harkness v. Bauhaus USA, Inc., 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 17926, 2015 WL 631512, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2015). A “motion in
limine is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” Fos v. Wal-Mart Stores
East, LP, No. 3:12-CV-735-LG-JCG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179878, at *7 (S.D. Miss.
June 2, 2015); see also United States v. Dawn Props., No. 1:14-CV-224-LG-JCG, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172141, at *9 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 13, 2016); Marlow LLC v. Bellsouth
Telcoms., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-135-KS-MTP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446, at *9-*10 (S.D.
Miss. Jan. 9, 2016). Therefore, the Court denies this aspect of Defendants’ motion in
limine.
2.

Matters Not Disclosed in Discovery

Defendants seek the exclusion of all exhibits which have not been authenticated,
all witnesses not disclosed, all testimony not disclosed, and all expert opinions not
disclosed during discovery.
“The purpose of motions in limine is not to re-iterate matters which are set forth
elsewhere in the Rules of Civil Procedure or Rules of Evidence, but, rather, to identify
specific issues which are likely to arise at trial, and which, due to their complexity or
potentially prejudicial nature, are best addressed in the context of a motion in limine.”
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58077, 2011 WL 2134578, at *4
(N.D. Miss. May 21, 2011). Therefore, the Court denies this aspect of Defendants’
motion in limine without prejudice to Defendants’ right to raise specific issues at trial.
3.

Attorney’s Fees

Defendants seek the exclusion of all evidence related to Plaintiff’s attorney’s
2

fees, apparently on the basis that Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees. As noted
above, a “motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” Fos,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179878 at *7. The Court denies this aspect of Defendants’
motion in limine.
5.

Monetary Damage

Defendants argue that Plaintiff should be barred from seeking any monetary
damages. As noted above, a “motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion for
summary judgment.” Id. The Court denies this aspect of Defendants’ motion in limine.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [101]
1.

Election of Remedies

Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be barred from raising the doctrine of
election of remedies because they failed to plead it as an affirmative defense, and
because the doctrine does not apply here. As noted above, a “motion in limine is not a
substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” Id. The Court denies this aspect of
Plaintiff’s motion in limine.
2.

Commercial Reasonableness

Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be barred from raising the issue of
whether Plaintiff marketed the aircraft in a commercially reasonable manner because
they failed to plead it as an affirmative defense or counterclaim. Plaintiff also argues
that it acted in a commercially reasonable manner. As noted above, a “motion in limine
is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” Id. The Court denies this
aspect of Plaintiff’s motion in limine.
3

3.

Necessary Parties

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court should bar Defendants from arguing that
it failed to join a necessary and indispensable party because Defendants failed to raise
Rule 19 in their responsive pleading or by motion. As noted above, a “motion in limine
is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” Id. The Court denies this
aspect of Defendants’ motion in limine.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this __14th___ day of July, 2017.

s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4