1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-80780-MATTHEWMAN

WEST PALM BEACH ACQUISITIONS, INC.,

d/b/a Greenway Kia West Palm Beach, and

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF

PLAINTIFF’S POST-TERMINATION PERFORMANCE [DE 141]

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, Kia Motors America, Inc.’s

(“Defendant”) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Post-Termination Performance

(“Motion”) [DE 141]. Plaintiff, West Palm Beach Acquisitions, Inc., d/b/a Greenway Kia West 

Palm Beach (“Plaintiff”), has filed a response to the Motion [DE 145], and Defendant has replied

[DE 150]. The matter is now ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ 

written submissions, the parties’ oral argument at the hearing, the record, and applicable law.

I. BACKGROUND

The dispute in this case concerns Defendant’s attempt to terminate its franchise agreement 

with Plaintiff, a Kia dealership in West Palm Beach. Plaintiff has brought causes of action against 

Defendant under the Florida Dealer Act. 

Case 9:20-cv-80780-WM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

II. MOTION, RESPONSE, AND REPLY

In the Motion, Defendant generally argues that “post-termination” evidence “did not form

the basis for KMA’s Notice of Termination, and is therefore irrelevant to Greenway’s challenge 

to the Notice of Termination under Fla. Stat. § 320.641.” [DE 141 at 1]. Defendant requests that 

the Court exclude any evidence at trial regarding Plaintiff’s performance on or after March 1, 2020. 

Id. at 3. 

In response, Plaintiff contends that post-termination evidence “shows the impact of KMA’s 

rush to judgment” in terminating Plaintiff. [DE 145 at 1]. According to Plaintiff, the evidence 

Defendant seeks to exclude is both critical and relevant because the evidence shows that 

Defendant’s “attempt to terminate Greenway’s franchise was rushed, based on a stale data set, and 

fails to meet the statutory standard.” Id. at 1–2.

In reply, Defendant argues that post-termination evidence is simply irrelevant under section 

320.641, Florida Statutes. [DE 150 at 1–2]. 

III. RELEVANT LAW

The Court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly 

inadmissible on all potential grounds. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). Motions in 

limine are generally disfavored as admissibility questions should be ruled upon as they arise at 

trial. Begualg Inv. Mgmt., Inc. v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., 10-22153-CIV, 2013 WL 750309, at 

*1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2013). As a result, if evidence is not clearly inadmissible, “evidentiary 

rulings must be deferred until trial to allow questions regarding foundation, relevancy, and 

prejudice.” Lordeus v. Torres, 1:17-CV-20726-UU, 2018 WL 1364641, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 

2018) (quoting Kobie v. Fifthian, 2014 WL 1652421, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 2014)). Motions in limine

Case 9:20-cv-80780-WM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

are “best limited to those issues that the mere mention of which would deprive a party of a fair 

trial. The Court does not issue advisory opinions, and it is difficult to rule in a vacuum without 

having the opportunity to see the proffered testimony in perspective with other evidence in the 

trial.” United States v. Everglades Coll., Inc., No. 12-60185-CIV, 2014 WL 11578214, at *1 (S.D. 

Fla. May 28, 2014); see also Contreras v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Serv., Inc., No. 13-

22425-CIV, 2014 WL 11880996, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2014) (“It is always difficult to rule in 

a vacuum, so the Court’s ruling is without prejudice to Defendants’ objecting when the evidence 

is sought to be introduced.”); accord Apple, Inc. v. Corellium, LLC, 19-cv-81160-

Smith/Matthewman, 2021 WL 2712131 (S.D. Fla. July 1, 2021). 

Furthermore, “[i]t is unnecessary, in bench trials, for a court to determine whether to 

exclude evidence prior to the start of trial.” Alan L. Frank L. Assocs., P.C. v. OOO RM Inv., No. 

16-22484-CIV, 2016 WL 9348064, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2016) (citing Cramer v. Sabine 

Transp. Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 727, 733 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (noting, “this is a bench trial, making any 

motion in limine asinine on its face”). “The rationale underlying pre-trial motions in limine does 

not apply in a bench trial, where it is presumed that the judge will disregard inadmissible evidence 

and rely only on competent evidence.” Id. (citing Pinal Creek Grp. v. Newmont Mining Corp., No. 

CV-91-1764-PHX-DAE, 2006 WL 1766494, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 26, 2006); see also matter of 

Blue Crest Holding Asset, Inc., No. 17-21011-CIV, 2018 WL 1463644, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 

2018). “The more prudent course in a bench trial, therefore, is to resolve all evidentiary doubts in 

favor of admissibility.” Id. (citing Commerce Funding Corp. v. Comprehensive Habilitation 

Servs., Inc., No. 01 Civ 3796 (PKL), 2004 WL 1970144, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2004)).

Case 9:20-cv-80780-WM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

IV. ANALYSIS AND RULINGS

Based on the applicable law, the Court finds it appropriate to deny the Motion without

prejudice for Defendant to raise its relevancy arguments regarding Plaintiff’s post-termination 

evidence at the time of the bench trial, if Defendant has a good-faith basis to do so. There is no 

need for the Court to make a relevancy determination in a vacuum prior to trial when the Court is 

capable of disregarding inadmissible evidence during a bench trial. Moreover, it appears at this 

juncture, before the bench trial has commenced, that the evidence at issue may arguably be relevant 

to the issues of unfairness, good faith, and good cause under section 320.641, Florida Statutes.

V. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s 

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Post-Termination Performance [DE 141] is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as stated above. Since this case is proceeding by way of a 

bench trial, the Court’s rulings are made without prejudice, and the Court will determine the 

relevancy of the post-termination evidence and/or what weight, if any, to give the evidence if it is 

admitted.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 

this 25th day of April, 2022.

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:20-cv-80780-WM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 4 of 4