Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00552/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00552-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. EVERSOLE,

NO. CIV. S-08cv552 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, in personam,

and M/V SOLANO, M/V VALLEJO, O R D E R

and M/V INTINTOLI, and their

engines, tackle, apparel,

etc., in rem,

Defendants.

 /

On May 10, 2010, the court issued a tentative pretrial order.

The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to the

tentative order, and seven days to respond to objections filed by

the other party. Many of the objections were undisputed, and the

court will accordingly amend the pretrial order. Nonetheless,

several of the objections are disputed or warrant further

discussion. The court resolves these issues below.

////

Case 2:08-cv-00552-LKK -EFB Document 61 Filed 06/10/10 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

2

I. Deadlines for Filing Motions in Limine

Motions in limine are set to be heard the first day of trial.

Defendants requested clarification as to the filing and service

deadlines for these motions. All motions in limine shall be filed

twenty-eight (28) days before the first day of trial. All

oppositions or statements of non-opposition shall be filed fourteen

(14) days before the first day of trial. 

II. Attorneys’ Fees

Defendants request that language stating that “Plaintiff seeks

attorneys’ fees” be deleted in the final pretrial order. Plaintiff

has not filed opposed this issue. As such, the language will be

removed from the final order, and replaced with the word “none.”

III. Objections to Plaintiff’s Amended Exhibit List

Defendants raise numerous evidentiary objections to

plaintiff’s amended exhibit list. These objections must be raised

at the time the exhibit is offered. Accordingly, the court does not

resolve the merits of these disputes.

IV. Objections to Defendants’ Second Amended Exhibit List

Defendants timely filed an amended exhibit list. The day

following the deadline, defendant filed a second amended exhibit

list, adding one additional witness. Plaintiff objects to the late

filing. Defendants have not explained why this witness was added

late, but rather indicate that plaintiff has experienced no

prejudice as a result of the late filing. The court will include

defendants' second amended witness list in the final pretrial

order. However, because defendant has not demonstrated good cause

Case 2:08-cv-00552-LKK -EFB Document 61 Filed 06/10/10 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

The court notes that the format of defendants’ request is 1

improper. Each affirmative defense shall constitute a separate

point of law.

3

for his late filing, defendant's counsel is sanctioned in the

amount of $150 to be paid to the Clerk of Court.

V. Defendants’ Requests to Include Additional Evidentiary

Issues

Defendants request that this court add several additional

evidentiary issues. Plaintiff objects to the addition of these

evidentiary issues because most “are not evidentiary issues at

all.” Evidentiary disputes are not resolved in the pretrial order,

but rather through orders on motions in limine. Accordingly, the

inclusion of these issues in the pretrial order serves to put the

opposing party on notice of the nature of the evidentiary disputes

prior to the filing of motions in limine. Thus, the court will add

defendants additional evidentiary issues to the final pretrial

order.

VI. Defendants’ Requests to Include Additional Points of Law

Defendants seek to add the following point of law: “The

elements, standards, and burdens of proof for the following

affirmative defenses raised by Defendants in their respective

Answer: Failure to State a Cause of Action; Contributory

Negligence; Comparative Negligence; Failure to Mitigate Damages;

Statute of Limitations; Primary Duty Rule; Unclean Hands.”1

Plaintiff opposes the addition of four of the affirmative defenses:

(1) failure to state a claim, (2) contributory negligence, (3)

Case 2:08-cv-00552-LKK -EFB Document 61 Filed 06/10/10 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

4

statute of limitations, and (4) unclean hands.

Plaintiff correctly argues that defendants have waived the

defense of failure to state a claim. Such a defense must be raised

in a motion prior to the pretrial conference. For this reason, the

court will not add this point of law.

The court will, however, include the remaining points of law.

It appears to the court that many, if not all, of these defenses

could have been raised in a motion for summary judgment motion.

Nonetheless, even if, as plaintiff contends, these defenses are

without merit, the court will include them as points of law.

However, the court invites plaintiff to bring motions in limine to

preclude these defenses.

VII.Conclusion

The court will issue a final pretrial order pursuant to the

above findings.

The court ORDERS that counsel for defendants is SANCTIONED in

the amount of one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars. This sum

shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30)

days from the date of this order. Counsel shall file an affidavit

accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is

paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and

will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any

way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or

costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 9, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00552-LKK -EFB Document 61 Filed 06/10/10 Page 4 of 4