Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Management v. Guthrie City of et al

Filing 340

ORDER granting 290 Ninth Motion in Limine to Strike and Exclude Evidence of Damages Barred by the Statute of Limitations. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 12/21/12. (kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RURAL WATER, SEWER AND
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, LOGAN COUNTY,
OKLAHOMA, an agency and
legally constituted authority of the
State of Oklahoma,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF GUTHRIE, an Oklahoma
municipality, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-05-786-R

ORDER
On January 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment asking the
court to declare that defendants’ statute of limitations defense was not available as
a matter of law. In response to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, defendants
conceded that the statute of limitations did not bar plaintiff’s claims, but asserted the
two-year limitations period did limit the amount of damages plaintiff could collect.
Defendants’ Response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 44-46
(Doc. No. 37). In its reply brief, plaintiff stated: “Guthrie concedes the statute of
limitations cannot be applied to preclude Logan-1's claims except to the extent it
may preclude Logan-1 from going back more than 2 years for the calculation of
monetary damages. Therefore, Logan-1 is entitled to a partial summary judgment
declaring same.” Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment at 18-19 (Doc. No. 46). Based on the parties’ briefs, the
court concluded:
The court finds the District is not, however, entitled to
summary judgment on the City defendants’ statute of
limitations claim. In response to District’s motion, the City
defendants clarified this defense relates solely to the
damages to which the District may be entitled should it
prevail. Defendants’ Response at 46. They argue – and
the District does not contest – that the statute of limitations
bars the District from recovering damages prior to July 12,
2003. As the District does not contest the City defendants’
clarified limitations defense, it is not entitled to judgment in
its favor.
Rural Water, Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, Case No.
CIV-05-786-R, ord. at 20 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 27, 2007) (Doc. No. 170) (footnote
omitted).
This matter is before the court on defendants’ ninth motion in limine, which
seeks a ruling that plaintiff may not present evidence of damages that occurred prior
to the two year statute of limitations.1 Defendants assert that evidence of damages
outside the limitations period is not relevant and would tend to confuse the jury. In
addition, defendants note that plaintiff’s damages expert has not calculated damages
outside the two-year limitations period.

Plaintiff counters that the statute of

limitations does not apply to it because it has sued to vindicate a public right. It also

1

In its summary judgment ruling, the court noted that this action was filed on July 12, 2005
and that a “two-year limitations period applies to actions to enforce rights under § 1926(b).” Id. at
20 n.18. Plaintiff filed a supplement to its complaint on August 25, 2010. The two-year limitations
period for the supplemental claims would therefore begin on August 25, 2008.

2

asserts that lay witnesses can provide testimony detailing plaintiff’s damages prior
to the period not covered by its expert’s report.
On December 17, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration of its summary judgment rulings. In its motion to reconsider,
plaintiff presented the same argument it presents here: that it is exempt from the
statute of limitations because it is enforcing public rights. See Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider the Court’s Ruling Relating to Fire Protection and the Statute of
Limitations Defense at 14-16 (Doc. No. 172). In its order denying the motion, the
court labeled “plaintiff’s newly minted statute of limitations arguments . . . simply
without merit.” Rural Water, Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist. No. 1 v. City of
Guthrie, Case No. CIV-05-786-R, ord. at 3 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 17, 2007) (Doc. No.
181). The court sees no reason to revisit its prior rulings at this late date.
Defendants’ Ninth Motion In Limine to Strike and Exclude Evidence of
Damages Barred by the Statute of Limitations (Doc. No. 290) is therefore
GRANTED.
It is so ordered this 21st day of December, 2012.

3