Fredeking et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 141

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 126 MOTION in Limine, as more fully set forth herein; granting Plaintiff's 133 MOTION in Limine. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 2/20/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

R. R. FREDEKING, II
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-12415

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.’s (“Chase”) Motion in
Limine, ECF No. 126, and Plaintiff R. R. Fredeking, II Motion in Limine, ECF No. 133.1 For the
following reasons, Defendant’s Motion in Limine, ECF No. 126, is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, ECF No. 133, is GRANTED.
I. DEFENDANT’S MOTION
First the Court addresses the Motion by Chase. Chase subdivided its Motion into fourteen
different motions, each designated by a letter of the alphabet, starting with “A.” The Court adopts
the same structure, and addresses each in turn.
A. Motion to preclude reference to the relationship between Chase and its sister and parent
companies
Insofar as any document admitted into evidence references a parent or sister company of
Chase Bank USA, N.A., that information is relevant and thus admissible. However, Plaintiff is

1

Though the motion was filed on behalf of R. R. Fredeking, II and Debbie Fredeking, the
Court has dismissed Debbie Fredeking as a plaintiff. As such, any references to “Plaintiffs” in the
motions are construed as a reference to Mr. Fredeking, except for when context deems otherwise.

limited to eliciting testimony based on those admissible documents. Otherwise, Defendant’s
affiliated parent and sister companies are not relevant in this case. Accordingly, the Motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
B. Motion to exclude policies and procedures not applicable to the investigation into the
dispute relating to Mr. Fredeking’s account
At the pretrial conference, Defendant notified the Court that the parties have agreed as to
which policies are relevant or not, with the exception of Defendant’s “calls policy.” This policy
relates to incoming calls and conversations from cardmembers. While Plaintiff bears the burden
of establishing the admissibility of this document, there is deposition testimony of Chase’s
employee, Jody Casas, that this policy could have been invoked when Ms. Casas “transferred [Mr.
Fredeking] to our dispute, by phone, department to dispute the transaction.” Casas Dep., p. 16,
ECF No. 109-9. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
C. Motion to preclude any characterization of Mr. Fredeking’s “credit line” as a “credit
limit”
The Cardmember Agreement drafted by Defendant uses the terms “credit line” and “credit
limit” interchangeably. Cardmember Agreement, p. 1, ECF No. 107-9. Furthermore, the billing
statements submitted as evidence by both parties indicate a “credit limit” of $25,000. Billing
Statements, passim, ECF No. 114-1. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
D. Motion to preclude any characterization of the boat as “junk” or worthless
It is the existence of a charge, not the valuation of the boat and amount which was
charged for its loss, that is at issue in this case. Unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that he filed a
complaint with Defendant that the value of the boat was evidence of the alleged fraud, that
information is otherwise irrelevant. For that narrow exception, the Motion is DENIED in part, and
is otherwise GRANTED in part.

-2-

E. Motion to exclude Ms. Debbie Fredeking’s hearsay conversations with third parties
regarding the charge and hearsay information about Mr. Wayde Collins
It is the Court’s understanding that there are conversations Plaintiff wishes to offer that
would constitute hearsay, particularly those about the background of Mr. Wayde Collins and his
relationship to the transaction. However, if Plaintiff offers such information as part of what he
reported to Chase in alleging the fraudulent nature of the charge, such information would be
relevant and could be argued as non-hearsay. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED as premature,
but Plaintiff’s must lay proper foundation that this information.
F. Motion to exclude Mr. and Mrs. Fredeking’s conversation with counsel
The Motion is GRANTED as unopposed.
G. Motion to exclude any testimony by Ms. Fredeking regarding the events surrounding the
rental of the boat
Mrs. Fredeking has no firsthand knowledge of the actual signing of the Rental Agreement
and the Charge Slips. However, she has much in the way of firsthand testimony relevant to the
case. Any limitation on what she can testify to would depend on the questions actually asked at
trial and the foundation laid by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED as premature.
H. Motion to exclude damages relating to any alleged credit reporting
Plaintiffs have not alleged any claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and
are thus not entitled to damages on that basis. The Motion is GRANTED.
I. Motion to preclude any expert on behalf of Plaintiff
Neither side has identified any expert witnesses. The Motion is GRANTED as unopposed.
J. Motion to preclude suggestive testimony that the letters from “Coalition for Credit Relief”
and “National Debt Network” were sent by or on behalf of Chase
Consistent with the Court’s findings in paragraph “H”, Plaintiff has not alleged any claim
under the FCRA, so these documents cannot be offered under such a claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff
-3-

has not supported that these letters were sent, directly or indirectly, by Defendant. As such, the
Motion is GRANTED.
K. Motion to exclude the net worth or financial position of Chase
Plaintiff made no claims for punitive damages, so any evidence on this matter would be
irrelevant. The Motion is GRANTED.
L. Motion to preclude any unidentified witnesses or documents not previously produced
Plaintiff offers no evidence on this issue. The Motion is DENIED as moot.
M. Motion to preclude any claim not asserted in the Complaint
Plaintiff offers no evidence on this issue. The Motion is DENIED as moot.
N. Motion to preclude any references to or any evidence, testimony or argument concerning
any other lawsuits or actions against Chase or any affiliated entity
Plaintiff offers no evidence on this issue. The Motion is DENIED as moot.
II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Next, the Court addresses the Motion by Mr. Fredeking. Mr. Fredeking subdivided his
Motion into four different motions, each designated by a number, starting with “1.” The Court
adopts the same structure and addresses each in turn.
1. Motion to exclude Mr. and Mrs. Fredeking’s driver’s licenses
In the Order on cross Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court determined Plaintiff’s
residency not to be a relevant issue in this case. ECF No. 140. As such, this Motion is GRANTED.
2. Motion to exclude Mr. and Mrs. Fredeking’s Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicle records
For the same reasons in the Court’s ruling in paragraph “One,” this Motion is GRANTED.
3. Motion to exclude the December 29, 1997 Declaration of Domicile
For the same reasons in the Court’s ruling in paragraph “One,” this Motion is GRANTED.

-4-

4. Motion to exclude the January 10, 2015 Condition/Hull Survey and pictures
Consistent with the Court’s findings in paragraph “D,” the amount that was charged for the
purported value of the boat is not relevant. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant’s Motion in Limine, ECF No. 126, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, ECF No. 133, is
GRANTED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order and Notice to counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:

February 20, 2019

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-