RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC. et al v. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. et al, No. 2:2015cv00921 - Document 233 (E.D. Pa. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE PARTIES MOTIONS IN LIMINE ARE AS SET OUT IN THE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM OPINION DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE ON 9/2/22. 9/2/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(rf, )

Download PDF
RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC. et al v. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. et al Doc. 233 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al : : v. : : SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., et al : CIVIL ACTION RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al CIVIL ACTION v. TRITON MARINE CONSTRUCTION CORP. : : : : : : NO. 15-921 NO. 17-266 ORDER AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2022 upon consideration of extensive briefing by the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ Motions in Limine are, as set out in the attached Memorandum Opinion, DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Use of the Number of Refusal/Hard Hits Relative to the Hammer Manufacturers’ Warranties (Dkt. 17-266, Docs. 209, 210) is DENIED. 2. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Preclude Testimony Regarding Whether Defendants Should Have Performed Additional Vibration Area Studies (Dkt. 17-266, Doc. 211) is DENIED. 3. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Preclude Certain Financial Damages Testimony Regarding Categories of Damages Attributable to Each Sinkhole (Dkt. 17-266, Doc. 212) is DENIED. 4. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Preclude a Claim for Damages Related to Replacement Dockets.Justia.com and/or Repair of Pumps and Other Equipment (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 187) is DENIED. 5. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Preclude Lay Testimony Regarding Dry Dock Qualifications for Certifications and the Impact of Sinkholes on the Certification Process (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 188) is DENIED. 6. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Preclude Additional Evidence Related to the Alleged Assignment Between Plaintiffs and PAID (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 189) is DENIED. 7. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Limit Plaintiff’s Damages Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Mitigate Damages (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 190) is DENIED. 8. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Limit Plaintiff’s Damages to the Lesser of Cost of Repair and the Diminution to the Fair Market Value of the Property (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 191) is DENIED. 9. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Limit Plaintiff’s Damages as to Alleged Loss of Navy Projects (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 192) is DENIED. 10. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Evidence of the 2021 Navy Project and the October 28, 2021 Site Visit (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 193) is GRANTED. 11. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Reference to the Opinions of John Vitzthum or Any Representative of DM Consulting (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 194) is GRANTED. 12. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Evidence of Rhoads’ Recovery of Insurance Proceeds from American Home Assurance Company or Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 195) is GRANTED SUBJECT TO EXCEPTION. 13. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Any Reference to the Lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs Against the U.S. Navy and Settlement of Those Lawsuits (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 196) is GRANTED. 14. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Reference to the Appraisals of Rhoads’ Property by Dunkin Real Estate Advisors (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 197) is GRANTED SUBJECT TO EXCEPTION. 15. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Presenting Arguments or Opinions that Plaintiffs Can Keep Any Verdict and Not Perform Any Repairs to the Property (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 198) is GRANTED. 16. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Presenting Any Argument that Duffield Associates, Inc. and/or HDR Engineering, Inc. Should Be Included on the Verdict Sheet (Dkt. 15-921, Doc. 199) is GRANTED. 17. Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Three Government Documents (Dkt. 15921, Doc. 200) is GRANTED. BY THE COURT: /s/ David R. Strawbridge, USMJ DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.