Jeanes v. McBride et al, No. 6:2016cv01259 - Document 195 (W.D. La. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS regarding 146 Motion in Limine to Exclude and/or Limit Plaintiff's Evidence and Testimony by Greg McBride. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine to exclude and/or limit testimony, filed by Defend ant Greg McBride be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART as to Decker's estimates of damages and DENIED IN PART as to evidence of design defects and evidence of defects in the concrete and plumbing at the Building. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/7/2019. (crt,Putch, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jeanes v. McBride et al Doc. 195 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT W ESTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A JAN ET JEAN ES, Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -12 59 GREG MCBRID E, ET AL., D e fe n d a n ts SECTION : “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion in lim ine to lim it testim ony, filed by Defendant Greg McBride. 1 Plaintiff J anet J eanes opposes the m otion. 2 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRAN TS IN PART and D EN IES IN PART the m otion, as set forth below. BACKGROU N D This case arises from the construction of a building (“the Building”) on J eanes’ property at 2534 Ham pton Dupre Road in Pine Prairie, Louisian a. 3 In the sum m er of 20 10 , J ean es began discussing the construction of the Building with McBride. 4 McBride subm itted a proposal to J eanes, which she signed on Septem ber 23, 20 10 (“the Proposal”). 5 The m aterials and plans for the roof of the Building were provided by S & S Steel Buildings, Inc., doing business as Metal Roofing Supply (“S & S”). 6 Roy Bergis Sm ith, through his com pany, E. Sm ith Plum bing Service, Inc. (“E. Sm ith Plum bing”), provided plum bing services for the Building. 7 1 R. Doc. 146. R. Doc. 161. 3 R. Doc. 174 at 8, ¶ 7(1) (un contested m aterial facts in pretrial order). 4 Id. at 9, ¶ 7(2). 5 Id. at ¶¶ 7(2), (3). The proposal is on the record at R. Doc. 112-3. 6 Id. at ¶¶ 7(6), (7). 7 Id. at ¶ 7(8). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com On Septem ber 9, 20 16, J eanes filed the instan t suit. 8 She alleges McBride did not obtain the perm it required for constructing the Building an d that there were num erous defects in the Building. 9 In her Com plaint and Am ended Com plaint, J eanes nam es five Defendants: McBride; Metal Buildings by Mac, LLC (“Metal Buildings”); S & S; Roy Bergis Sm ith; an d E. Sm ith Plum bing. She brings five claim s: (1) breach of contract against all Defendants, (2) negligence against S & S, (3) fraud against all Defendants, (4) violation of the Louisian a Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”) 10 against all Defendants, and (5) successor liability against Metal Buildings. 11 The claim s against all Defendants but McBride have been dism issed. 12 The claim s against McBride are for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of LUTPA. 13 On April 5, 20 19, McBride filed the in stant m otion to lim it testim ony. 14 He seeks to exclude (1) testim ony McBride was responsible for design defects in the Building, (2) estim ates of construction repair costs perform ed by J am es Decker, and (3) evidence of alleged con crete an d plum bing defects in the Building. 15 J eanes opposes. 16 8 R. Doc. 1. Id. at 5, ¶ 13; 6– 7, ¶¶ 17– 20 . 10 LA. R EV. STAT. § 51:140 1 et seq. 11 R. Docs. 1, 35. 12 R. Docs. 55 (dism issin g claim s against S&S without prejudice), 67 (dism issing claim s against Metal Buildin gs without prejudice), 78 (dismissing claims against S&S with prejudice), 84 (dism issin g claim s against Metal Buildin gs with prejudice), 160 (notice of settlem ent of claim s again st Roy Bergis Sm ith and E. Sm ith Plum bin g Service, Inc.). 13 R. Doc. 1. 14 R. Doc. 146. 15 R. Doc. 146-1. 16 R. Doc. 161. 9 2 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS I. Je an e s w ill be p e rm itte d to in tro d u ce e vid e n ce re gard in g d e s ign d e fe cts . McBride argues J ean es should not be perm itted to introduce evidence regarding design defects because she did not allege in her Com plaint that McBride was responsible for design defects in the Building. 17 As a result, he argues eviden ce of design defects would be unfairly prejudicial to him under Rule 40 3 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 40 3 provides, “The court m ay exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or m ore of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, m isleading the jury, undue delay, wasting tim e, or needlessly presenting cum ulative evidence.”18 On April 5, 20 19, J eanes and McBride filed m otions for sum m ary judgm ent on whether McBride is entitled to im m unity on claim s related to design defects in the Building under LA. R EV. STAT. § 9:2771. 19 On J une 4, 20 19, the Court granted J ean es m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent an d den ied McBride’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, finding McBride is not entitled to im m unity under LA. R EV. STAT. § 9:2771. 20 In the Court’s ruling on the parties’ m otions for sum m ary judgm ent, the Court found the Com plaint alleged McBride was respon sible for design defects, an d McBride m ade or caused to be m ade the plans an d specifications for the Building. 21 As a result, the Court found McBride is not entitled to im m unity under LA. R EV. STAT. § 9:2771. 22 17 R. Doc. 146-1 at 2– 4. F ED. R. E VID. 40 3. 19 R. Docs. 112, 114. 20 R. Doc. 190 . 21 R. Doc. 190 at 21– 23. 22 Id. 18 3 Because McBride m ay be liable for dam ages resulting from design defects in the Building’s plans an d specifications, eviden ce related to design defects has substantial probative value. Because the Com plaint alleged McBride was responsible for design defects, introduction of such evidence would not be unfairly prejudicial to McBride. J eanes will be perm itted to introduce eviden ce with respect to design defects. The Court denies McBride’s m otion in lim ine to exclude eviden ce of design defects. II. Ja m e s D e cke r’s e s tim a te s o f co n s tru ctio n re p air co s ts w ill b e e xclu d e d . McBride argues estim ates of construction costs prepared by J am es Decker should be excluded. 23 On April 5, 20 19, McBride filed a m otion to exclude an d/ or lim it the testim ony of J eanes’ proposed expert Philip Beard. 24 McBride argued, in part, that Beard’s testim ony regarding dam ages estim ates should be excluded because Beard did not prepare the estim ate, but rather relied on the estim ate provided by J am es Decker, a third party contractor. 25 On J une 6, 20 19, the Court granted that portion of the m otion and ordered that Beard’s testim ony on Decker’s estim ates of construction repair costs be excluded. 26 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order on McBride’s m otion in lim ine to exclude an d/ or lim it Beard’s testim ony, the Court grants McBride’s m otion to exclude estim ates of construction costs prepared by J am es Decker. 23 R. Docs. 146-1 at 4– 7. R. Doc. 111-1. 25 R. Doc. 111-1 at 11– 12. 26 R. Doc. 194. 24 4 III. Evid e n ce an d te s tim o n y re gard in g d e fe cts in co n cre te an d p lu m bin g w ill be p e rm itte d . McBride argues evidence and testim ony of defects in con crete and plum bing should be excluded. 27 He argues such evidence or testim ony is does not satisfy the requirem ents of Rules 40 1, 40 3, 60 2, 70 1, 70 2, and 70 3 of the Federal Rules of Eviden ce. 28 In McBride’s m otion to exclude and/ or lim it Beard’s testim ony, McBride argued, in part, that Beard’s testim ony regarding defects in plum bing and concrete were unreliable and based on speculation. 29 In its order on the m otion, the Court found Beard’s testim ony with respect to construction and design defects was reliable and based on Beard’s person al investigation of the Building. 30 The Court found Beard had the requisite expertise to opine about the defects. 31 Eviden ce of defects is relevant to the issues in this case under Rule 40 1. The eviden ce is adm issible under Rule 40 3 because it has significant probative value, and its introduction would not prejudice McBride. The eviden ce is not speculative under Rule 60 2. The Court found in its order on McBride’s m otion to exclude and/ or lim it Beard’s testim ony that the evidence did not violate the requirem ents for expert testim ony in Rules 70 1, 70 2, and 70 3. The Court denies McBride’s m otion to exclude evidence an d testim ony of defects in concrete and plum bing. 27 R. Docs. 146-1 at 7– 8 . Id. at 7. 29 R. Doc. 111-1. 30 R. Doc. 194. 31 Id. 28 5 CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion in lim ine to exclude and/ or lim it testim ony, filed by Defendant Greg McBride be an d hereby is GRAN TED IN PART as to Decker’s estim ates of dam ages and D EN IED IN PART as to eviden ce of design defects and evidence of defects in the concrete an d plum bing at the Building. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ia n a , th is 7th d a y o f Ju n e , 2 0 19 . ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 6
]]>
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.
