-PMW Anastasion v. Credit Service of Logan et al, No. 2:2008cv00180 - Document 224 (D. Utah 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 206 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/17/2011. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION AMY ANASTASION, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING PLAINTIFF STOPPING PAYMENT ON CHECK 1040 vs. CREDIT SERVICE OF LOGAN, INC. dba ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICE, BRITTANY APARTMENTS, L.L.C., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:08-CV-180 TS Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff Stopping Payment on Check 1040.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff s Motion. Plaintiff filed the present Motion on October 11, 2011. In her Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court prohibit Defendant from presenting evidence regarding Plaintiff stopping payment on check 1040. Plaintiff argues that this evidence would not be relevant and, even if it were, that 1 Docket No. 206. 1 its probative value would be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Plaintiff also argues that the check is not admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) because the stop payment does not put into issue the Plaintiff s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness and so is not admissible for that purpose. While Rule 608(b) does prohibit the use of extrinsic evidence to support or attack a witness character for truthfulness, it does not apply to the issue at hand. Furthermore, this evidence is relevant to the issues in this case, and any prejudicial effect that it may have does not substantially outweigh its probative value. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff Stopping Payment on Check 1040 (Docket No. 206) is DENIED. DATED October 17, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
