Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00761/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00761-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Western Alliance Bank, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:14-cv-00761 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Richard Jefferson, ) [Re: Motion at Docket 149]

)

Defendant. )

)

)

Richard Jefferson, )

)

Counter-claimant, )

)

vs. )

)

Western Alliance Bank, )

)

Counter-defendant. )

)

)

Richard Jefferson, )

)

Third-party plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Theodore Kritza & Michelle Lee )

Kritza, )

)

Third-party defendants. )

)

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 192 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 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

26

27

28

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 149 defendant, counter-claimant, and third-party plaintiff Richard

Jefferson (“Jefferson”) filed a motion in limine to exclude what he refers to as “the

12/20/13 letter.”1 Third-party defendants Theodore Kritza and Michelle Lee Kritza

(collectively, “Kritza”) filed an opposition at docket 155; plaintiff and counter-defendant

Western Alliance Bank (“Alliance”) filed an opposition at docket 156. Jefferson filed a

combined reply at docket 168. Oral argument was requested, but would not assist the

court. 

II. BACKGROUND

The court has described the background giving rise to this litigation in detail in

the order at docket 183. It need not be repeated here. Suf fice it to say, for purposes of

the present motion, that Alliance sued Jefferson to recover an unpaid debt. Alliance’s

complaint alleges that attached to its complaint are “individual loan and change in terms

agreements comprising the Loan Agreement.”2 The ultimate document is the 12/20/13

letter,3 which Alliance alleges is a forbearance agreement between Alliance and

Jefferson under which Jefferson would make a $50,000 principal reduction payment in

exchange for Alliance’s promise to forbear from exercising its remedies under the loan

documents. Jefferson’s alleged breach of the terms of the 12/20/13 letter is the

operative default at issue in Alliance’s case against Jefferson.4

III. DISCUSSION

Jefferson argues that the 12/20/13 letter should be excluded pursuant to

Evidence Rule 403. That rule states that “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if

its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of,” among other things,

1Doc. 149 at 1. For purposes of consistency, the court will do the same.

2Doc. 1-3 at 4 ¶ 8.

3Doc. 1-4 at 82-85.

4Doc. 1-3 at 4 ¶¶ 10-13.

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 192 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 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

26

27

28

“unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,” or “misleading the jury.”5 “Unfair prejudice is an

undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not

necessarily, an emotional one. The Rule requires that the probative value of the

evidence be compared to the articulated reasons for exclusion and permits exclusion

only if one or more of those reasons substantially outweigh the probative value.”6

“‘Unless trials are to be conducted as scenarios, or unreal facts tailored and sanitized

for the occasion, the application of Rule 403 must be cautious and sparing. Its major

function is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in

by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect.”7

Jefferson does not seriously dispute the probative value of the alleged

forbearance agreement, nor could he. Instead, Jefferson asserts that the 12/20/13

letter “makes reference to amendments that do not exist, and have never existed,” and

falsely implies that two loans that were paid off were outstanding.

8

 Jefferson also

claims that he is not bound by the terms of the 12/20/13 letter because of Alliance’s

misrepresentations. Jefferson does not elaborate on how the letter might unduly

suggest the decision of any issue on an improper basis, or how the jury might be

confused or misled by the letter.

 Jefferson has not shown that the probative value of the 12/20/13 letter is

substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or

misleading the jury. Although Jefferson contends that his evidence shows that some

statements in the letter are false or misleading, he does not explain why the jury might

be incapable of weighing that evidence alongside the 12/20/13 letter and making

5Fed. R. Evid. 403.

6United States v. Anderson, 741 F.3d 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

7United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v.

Mills, 704 F.2d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir.1983)).

8Doc. 149 at 13-14.

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 192 Filed 08/17/15 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

26

27

28

appropriate findings of fact. That is exactly what juries are supposed to do.9 The

existence of evidence that tends to show that the 12/20/13 letter contains misleading

statements, without more, does not render that letter inadmissible under Rule 403.10

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Jefferson’s motion at docket 149 is DENIED. 

DATED this 17th day of August 2015.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9Cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (“Credibility

determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the

facts are jury functions . . . .”).

10Hankey, 203 F.3d at 1172 (“Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only

unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant

matter under Rule 403.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00761-JWS Document 192 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 4