Soliday v. 7-Eleven Inc., No. 2:2009cv00807 - Document 112 (M.D. Fla. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 91 Motion in limine to preclude punitive damages. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/20/2011. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JAMES SOLIDAY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:09-cv-807-FtM-29SPC 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant s Motion in Limine #3: Motion to Preclude Plaintiff From Asserting A Claim for Punitive Damages at Trial or, in the Alternative, to Strike Plaintiff s Claims for Punitive Damages (Doc. #91), filed on April 11, 2011. Defendant seeks to strike plaintiff s claim for punitive damages because (1) plaintiff failed to properly plead a claim for punitive damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3); (2) plaintiff cannot demonstrate defendant is vicariously liable for the alleged discrimination of its employee; and (3) punitive damages would be improper because defendant undisputedly engaged in a good faith effort to comply with Federal and State anti-discrimination laws. (Doc. #91, p. 1.) Plaintiff s Opposition (Doc. #109) was filed on April 20, 2011. While courts sometimes refer to a claim for damages, there is no such free-standing claim for relief. punitive Rather, punitive damages is a component of the relief sought as to various causes of action. While a claim must be stated with sufficient factual detail to be plausible, Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010), Rule 8(a)(3) merely requires a demand for the relief sought. The pleading rules set forth in Rule 8(a)(3) preempts Florida pleading requirements concerning a prayer for punitive damages. Porter v. Ogden, Newell & Welch, 241 F.3d 1334, 1340 (11th Cir. 2001). specifically stated. Special damages, however, must be Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g). If defendant wanted to raise a pleading deficiency as to punitive damages, it should have done so in a motion to dismiss or perhaps a timely motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2). The Court has already determined that plaintiff has sufficiently plead punitive damages (Doc. #64). Similarly, if punitive damages are not available based upon the undisputed evidence and if there is no evidence supporting vicarious liability, as defendant asserts, these issues should have been raised in a timely motion for summary judgment, not in a motion in limine. A motion in limine seeks to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before it is actually offered, Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984), not to sufficiency of the evidence or merits of an issue. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: -2- determine the Defendant s Motion in Limine #3: Motion to Preclude Plaintiff From Asserting A Claim for Punitive Damages at Trial or, in the Alternative, to Strike Plaintiff s Claims for Punitive Damages (Doc. #91) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this April, 2011. Copies: Counsel of record -3- 20th day of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
