Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

Matthew D. Kleifield ­ 011564 Chad C. Baker ­ 023083 Julie R. Barton ­ 022814 KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] (602) 331-4600

Attorneys for Defendants 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 135 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA MARVIN SAPIRO SAPIRO, his wife, and GLORIA No. CIV03-1555 PHX SRB DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 REGARDING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS' FINANCIAL ABILITY (Oral Argument Requested)

Plaintiffs, v. SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, L.L.C., SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.P. Defendant.

Defendants ("Sunstone") move this Court for its Order in Limine excluding any statement, argument, testimony, or evidence of Sunstone's financial ability and prohibiting any jury instruction regarding Sunstone's financial ability. Plaintiffs may wish to present evidence of 1) the profitability of Sunstone's business and the subsequent sale price of the San Marcos hotel; 2) other businesses owned by Sunstone; and 3) general information regarding assets and revenues of Sunstone despite the fact that Plaintiff has not forwarded a punitive damage claim. Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of

1 2

Evidence prevent the admissibility of any such evidence. The attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Court's entire file supports this Motion.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -2Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 135 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 2 of 4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Only relevant evidence is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant only if it makes the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence, however, is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Generally, the financial status of a defendant is inadmissible as evidence. Marvin

Johnson, P.C. v. Shoen, M.D., 888 F.Supp. 1009, 1013 (D. Ariz. 1995). In the limited instances where a defendant's wealth may relate to a substantive issue at trial, such evidence is admissible. Id. A defendant's financial standing, however, is inadmissible as evidence to

determine the amount of compensatory damages, because "the ability of a defendant to pay the necessary damages injects into the damage determination a foreign, diverting and distracting issue which may effectuate a prejudicial result." Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). In this case, there is no claim for punitive damages. (See R. at 116, Order Denying

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines And To Amend Complaint To Seek Punitive Damages). Additionally, Sunstone's financials play no role in its standard of care at issue in this action for alleged negligence. As such Sunstone's wealth is not relevant to any issue in this case. Moreover, the potential distracting nature Sunstone's financial status may interject

substantially outweighs any potential probative value this evidence may possess. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560; Fed. R. Evid. 403.

1 2

Consequently, Sunstone requests this Court instruct Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel to not make any reference to, or provide any evidence regarding, Sunstone 's financial condition.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DATED this 5th day of December, 2005. KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD A Professional Corporation By s/Chad Baker Matthew D. Kleifield Chad C. Baker Julie R. Barton 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902 Attorneys for Defendants

COPY of the foregoing e-filed this 5 th day of December, 2005, with: United States District Court Clerk of the Court 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COPIES of the foregoing mailed this 5th day of December, 2005, to: Hon. Susan J. Bolton 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Chloe Andrews Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 33 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Attorney for Plaintiffs Marvin and Gloria Sapiro

-3Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 135 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

COPIES of the foregoing electronically delivered this 5th day of December, 2005, to: Ann M. Galvani Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 33 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Attorney for Plaintiffs David W. Shapiro, Esq. Boise, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P. 199 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 Attorney for Plaintiffs Jorge Schmidt Boise, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P. Bank of America Tower, Suite 2800 100 S.E. 2 nd Street Miami, Florida 33131-2144 Attorney for Plaintiffs Steven W. Davis, Es q. Boise, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P. Bank of America Tower, Suite 2800 100 S.E. 2 nd Street Miami, Florida 33131-2144 Attorney for Plaintiffs s/C. Waight

-4Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 135 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 4 of 4