Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Concrete Accessories of Georgia, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Idaho

May 3, 2019

OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CONCRETE ACCESSORIES OF GEORGIA, INC., AREVA FEDERAL SERVICES LLC, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. AREVA FEDERAL SERVICES LLC, Counterclaimant/Crossclaimant,
v.
OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC., CONCRETE ACCESSORIES OF GEORGIA, INC., Counterdefendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Crossclaim defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          B. LYNN WINMILL U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         Presently before the Court are two ripe motions: CONAC's Third Motion in Limine (Dkt. 104) and Crossclaim Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's Motion for Costs and Fees (Dkt. 120). The Court DENIES CONAC's Third Motion in Limine (Dkt. 104) and GRANTS Crossclaim Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's Motion for Costs and Fees (Dkt. 120) in a reduced amount.

         ANALYSIS

         1. CONAC's Motion In Limine Is Improper

         A. Background

         The deadline for dispositive motions in this case was October 19, 2018. Dkt. 34. CONAC filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 71) that was denied (Dkt. 115). After the dispositive motion deadline passed, CONAC filed this motion. CONAC seeks an order:

determining that Plaintiff Oldcastle Precast, Inc. ... is not entitled to indemnity from CONAC for its defense against the counterclaim of [Areva] if the jury m any trial of this matter finds that Oldcastle is at least partially liable to ... [Areva].

Dkt. 104-1 at 2. Thus, CONAC's motion is conditional in at least two respects. First, it requires this Court to determine, as a matter of law, that CONAC is not responsible for indemnifying Oldcastle in the event Oldcastle is liable to Areva. Second, the Court's order would apply only if the jury determined that (1) CONAC is not liable and (2) Oldcastle is liable.

         B. Legal Standard

         There is no express authority for motions in limine in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nevertheless, these motions are well recognized in practice and by case law. See, e.g., Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 (2000). The key function of a motion in limine is to "exclude prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 (1984). Parties may use motions in limine to seek relief that is more properly sought through motions for summary judgment. See Bright Harvest Sweet Potato Co. v. H.J. Heinz Co., L.P., No. 1:13-CV-296-BLW, 2015 WL 1020644, at *4 (D. Idaho Mar. 9, 2015); Fort Hall Landowners All, Inc. v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, No. CV-99-52-E-BLW, 2007 WL 2187256, at * 1 (D. Idaho July 16, 2007) ("A true motion in limine would seek a ruling in advance of trial on whether certain evidence [was admissible].").

         C. Analysis

         CONAC's request is a motion for summary judgment presented in the guise of a motion in limine. CONAC's motion does not seek to exclude any evidence; instead, CONAC asks the Court for a determination regarding Oldcastle's indemnity claim ''[a]s a matter of law." Dkt. 104-1 at 7. Simply put, the deadline for dispositive motions has passed. The determination of whether CONAC must indemnify Oldcastle will be put in the hands of the jury.[1]

         2. Liberty Mutual Is Entitled to Limited Costs from Areva and Is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.