Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03107/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03107-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Davis
Plaintiff
Hollins Law
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOLLINS LAW, A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

No. CIV. S-12-3107 LKK/AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective motions in limine 

were originally set for hearing on March 3, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 

However, the parties subsequently stipulated to vacate the 

hearing thereon. (ECF Nos. 79, 80.) Accordingly, the court herein 

decides the motions based on the parties’ briefs. It is 

important to recognize that the trial will be to the court. 

The court hereby orders as follows: 

[1] For administrative reasons, trial in this matter, 

currently set for March 18, 2014, is CONTINUED to April 8, 

2014. The trial will commence at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4. 

Case 2:12-cv-03107-TLN-AC Document 81 Filed 03/03/14 Page 1 of 3
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 

2 

[2] Plaintiff’s motion in limine #1, “To exclude Defendant, 

its witnesses, and its attorneys from mentioning within the 

hearing of the jury, including in jury instructions, the 

availability of an award of attorneys’ fees should Plaintiff 

prevail,” is DENIED. 

[3] Plaintiff’s motion in limine #2, “To exclude Defendant 

from asking questions and making any reference to 

Plaintiff’s character, including Plaintiff’s other debt,” is 

GRANTED, except that defendant is permitted to inquire into, 

and introduce evidence regarding, the amount of Plaintiff’s 

other debt and the purposes for which it was incurred. 

[4] Defendant’s motion in limine #1, “To exclude Plaintiff’s 

deposition testimony during Plaintiff’s case-in-chief,” is 

GRANTED. 

[5] Defendant’s motion in limine #2, “To exclude any 

transcription of the voicemail message allegedly left by 

defendant Hollins Law,” is DENIED. 

[6] Defendant’s motion in limine #3, “To exclude any 

recording of the voicemail message allegedly left by 

defendant Hollins Law,” is DENIED. 

[7] Defendant’s motion in limine #4, “To exclude Plaintiff’s 

wife Margaret Davis from testifying as a witness for 

Plaintiff,” is GRANTED. 

Case 2:12-cv-03107-TLN-AC Document 81 Filed 03/03/14 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

[8] Defendant’s motion in limine #5, “To exclude any 

evidence of non-adjudicated complaints against Defendant 

Hollins Law,” is GRANTED.

[9] Defendant’s motion in limine #6, “To exclude evidence 

that contradicts Plaintiff’s admission that he ‘gave consent 

to HOLLINS LAW to COMMUNICATE with Plaintiff regarding the 

collection of the ALLEGED DEBT,’” is GRANTED. 

[10] Defendant’s motion in limine #7, “To exclude evidence 

that contradicts Plaintiff’s admission that ‘Upon hearing 

the voice message, transcribed as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Plaintiff understood that it was from a debt 

collector by combining the message itself with Plaintiff’s 

prior knowledge that Defendant was a debt collector,’” is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 28, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-03107-TLN-AC Document 81 Filed 03/03/14 Page 3 of 3