Anastasion v. Credit Service of Logan et al

Filing 223

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 204 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/17/2011. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

AMY ANASTASION,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
IN LIMINE REGARDING
SETTLEMENT WITH BRITTANY
APARTMENTS

vs.

CREDIT SERVICE OF LOGAN, INC. dba
ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICE,
BRITTANY APARTMENTS, L.L.C., and
DOES 1-10,

Case No. 2:08-CV-180 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Settlement
with Brittany Apartments.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s
Motion without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed the present Motion on October 11, 2011. In her Motion, Plaintiff requests
that the Court prohibit Defendant from presenting evidence regarding Plaintiff’s settlement with

1

Docket No. 204.
1

Brittany Apartments. Plaintiff argues that this evidence violates Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403, and 408.
Rule 408(a) states that certain evidence relating to settlements “is not admissible on behalf of any
party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as
to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.”2
The Court intends to exclude evidence that is barred by Rule 408(a). However, “[t]he rule does
not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a).”3
Some “[e]xamples of permissible purposes include proving a witness’s bias or prejudice.”4
As Plaintiff has not indicated any specific evidence she would like excluded, the Court
cannot conduct an analysis of relevance under 401 or prejudice under 403. However, Plaintiff is
free to object during trial if she feels that evidence discussing settlement is being offered for an
improper purpose or otherwise violates the Rules of Evidence.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Settlement with Brittany
Apartments (Docket No. 204) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to further objections being
raised at trial.

2

Fed.R.Evid. 408(a).

3

Id. at 408(b).

4

Id.
2

DATED October 17, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3