LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 

6701 SUNSET DRIVE, SUITE 101, MIAMI, FL, 33143 • TELEPHONE (305) 665-9211

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case No.: 1:20-cv-22603-GOODMAN

[CONSENT]

Erik Chavez, individually, and on behalf of 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Grill Enterprises, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, d/b/a “Los Parrilleros” and 

“Parrilleros Tavern”, and; 

Ruben Sierra, individually, 

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel and in accordance with this Court’s “Order 

Specially Setting Civil Jury Trial . . .” [ECF No. 130], hereby file the instant Motion in Limine, as 

follows:

EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED

Plaintiffs seek to exclude the following described evidence:

I. Lay Trial Witnesses. 

In the course of discovery, Plaintiffs propounded Interrogatories to Defendants inquiring 

as to the identity of persons with knowledge regarding this case. The Defendants answered the 

interrogatories and provided the names of only certain witnesses which did not include sufficient 

identifying information for witnesses.

This required relief by way of discovery hearing with U.S. Magistrate Goodman who 

ordered: 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2023 Page 1 of 6
2 

Defendants will not be permitted to call any person who is not listed in Defendants’ 

original or supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 13 as a witness at trial.

[ECF No. 61, p. 2]. 

The Defendants have submitted a Defendants’ Witness List which includes a number of 

persons and entities not previously listed “in Defendants’ original or supplemental answer to 

Interrogatory No. 13.” 

In response to Interrogatories, Defendants listed 25 witness; Defendants’ first draft of 

proposed Trial Witness List listed 78 witness; the Defendants’ revised draft of witness list, filed 

as ECF No. 81-3, lists 34 individuals or entities. 

Reason why this Evidence Should be Excluded

The Court has already issued an order indicating that the Defendants would not be 

permitted to present any witness not identified in their answers to interrogatories. Specifically, the 

Court ordered: 

Defendants will not be permitted to call any person who is not listed in Defendants’ 

original or supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 13 as a witness at trial.

[ECF No. 61, p. 2]. 

The discovery period is now over and has been since prior to the time when Defendants 

last listed its trial witnesses. As such, the introduction of testimony from witnesses not previously 

listed by the Defendants must be excluded. 

II. Expert Trial Witnesses and Testimony. 

On March 9, 2021, the Court established a deadline of July 8, 2021 by which the Defendant 

must furnish expert witness list to the Defendant, along with the summaries/reports required by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and only those expert witnesses will be permitted to testify. Within the 

14-day period thereafter, Defendant must make its experts available for deposition by Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2023 Page 2 of 6
3 

The Defendants have never listed any expert witnesses or corresponding reports within the now 

two-year-old deadline within which to provide such disclosures. 

Upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants will attempt to 

introduce expert testimony from lay witnesses, and that such testimony will be predicated either 

upon hearsay or other inadmissible evidence, including predicate documents which have not 

previously been listed by the Defendants nor provided in the course of discovery. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants will seek to establish, through forensic accounting testimony 

and other inadmissible evidence, a suggestion that they paid the Plaintiffs a reduced hourly wage 

during “Phase I” of Plaintiffs’ employment, notwithstanding the fact that their own pay records 

clearly state that Plaintiffs were not paid any hourly wage, reduced or otherwise. Plaintiffs believe 

that Defendants will attempt to do so by suggesting that they paid withholding taxes to federal 

taxing authorities and that for some reason that by doing so this obviated their obligation to pay 

Plaintiffs a reduced hourly wage as a condition of their taking a tip credit applicable to tipped 

employees. 

Reason why this Evidence Should be Excluded

Defendants’ own pay records show they paid no hourly wage to Plaintiffs during “Phase I” 

of their employment. Defendants will likely try to contradict their own pay records through hearsay 

testimony and through fabricating through some cryptic accounting legerdemain or legal rationale 

that the payment of withholding taxes somehow obviates an employer’s obligation to pay tipped 

employees at least their applicable reduced minimum hourly wage. 

III. Charge of Discrimination. 

Defendants list as Exhibits for Trial documents related to a Charge of Discrimination filed 

by Plaintiff Erik Chavez pertaining to national origin discrimination. However, national origin 

discrimination is not within the pleadings and IS irrelevant to the matters before the Court. In fact, 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2023 Page 3 of 6
4 

the only remaining claims before the Court pertain to wage and hour matters under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. 

Reasons why this Evidence Should be Excluded

There is not legitimate reason to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s attempts to exhaust 

administrative remedies which are conditions precedent to causes of action which are not before 

the Court. The sole purpose of introducing such evidence would be to prejudice or confuse the jury 

with evidence or suggestions which are entirely immaterial remaining to the questions of fact for 

the jury. 

IV. Hearsay Statements. 

Upon information and belief, Defendants will try to introduce hearsay testimony regarding 

out of court statements made by various people, including self-serving statements by Defendants 

themselves, or other witnesses they list, or failed to timely list. Specifically, Defendants will 

attempt to testify, in the absence of documentary evidence in support, the notion that they at some 

point advised the Plaintiffs that the Defendants would take a tip credit from the Plaintiffs’ tips. 

Reason why this Evidence Should be Excluded

It is clear from the applicable law that in order to take a tip credit, a defendant is required 

to provide notice of their intent to do so. There is no such evidence in the record, otherwise, except 

other than a statement made by Defendant Ruben Sierra that he orally provided this notice one 

time many years ago during a meeting, which never actually took place and which neither of the 

Plaintiffs would have been in attendance. Such an attempt would represent the introduction of an 

out-of-Court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted and therefor barred under Federal 

Rules of Evidence, Rule 801, et seq. 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2023 Page 4 of 6
5 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

In order to prevail on a motion in limine, the moving party bears “the burden of 

demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground,” United States v. 

Gonzalez, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2010). The evidence identified above is, by 

definition, inadmissible, since it would be offered in contradiction of the Court’s pretrial order, a 

prior ruling regarding discovery, and would serve only to deprive the Plaintiffs of due process of 

law in that such evidence would be submitted for the first time at trial without affording the 

Plaintiffs any opportunity to challenge the authenticity, relevance, and applicability of the same. 

To be granted, a motion in limine must be directed to specific items of evidence. Holley v. Carnival 

Corp., No. 20-CV-20495, 2021 WL 5299836 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2021), at *4 (“To be appropriate, 

motions in limine should address specific pieces of evidence that are inadmissible on any relevant 

ground.” (emphasis in original)); Mowbray v. Carnival Corp., No. 08-20931-CIV, 2009 WL 

10667070 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2009), at *2; A.T.O. Golden Constr. Corp. v. Allied World Ins. Co., 

No. 17-24223-Civ, 2018 WL 5886663, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2018) (“The movant has the burden 

of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground. The court may deny a 

motion in limine when it lacks the necessary specificity with respect to the evidence to be 

excluded.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Southpoint Condo. Assoc., Inc. v. Lexington 

Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-61365, 2020 WL 3547028, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2020) (same). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence detailed above from being 

introduced by Defendants at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court grant the Plaintiffs’ instant Motion in 

Limine and preclude Defendants from introducing the evidence described above at trial. 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2023 Page 5 of 6
6 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Undersigned counsel certifies that he conferred with opposing counsel regarding the relief 

sought herein, but that the parties have been unable to resolve their differences as of the time of 

filing. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF and served on the parties listed in the 

Service List below in the manner indicated therein.

Anthony F. Sanchez, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101

Miami, Florida 33143

Tel.: 305-665-9211

By: /s/ Anthony F. Sanchez

Anthony F. Sanchez

Florida Bar No.789925

afs@laborlawfla.com

SERVICE LIST

Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 789925 

afs@laborlawfla.com 

faz@laborlawfla.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 

Miami, Florida 33143 

Tel: 305-665-9211 

Todd W. Shulby, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 068365 

tshulby@shulbylaw.com

llangford@shulbylaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants

TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.

1792 Bell Tower Lane 

Weston, Florida 33326 

Tel: 954-530-2236 

Fax: 954-530-6628 

Via Notice of Electronic Filing

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2023 Page 6 of 6