UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No. 9:20-cv-80954-DMM

SL MONROE, SR, and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 

GROUP, LLC, d/b/a The Palm Beach 

Institute, PALM BEACH RECOVERY, 

LLC, and DOMINIC SIRIANNI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Plaintiff, SL MONROE, SR (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files 

this response in opposition to the Motions in Limine filed by the Defendants DELPHI 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, LLC, d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM BEACH 

RECOVERY, LLC, and DOMINIC SIRIANNI (collectively, “Defendants”), and in support, 

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Behavioral Health Technician from 

approximately July 20, 2018 through April 1, 2020. During his employment, Plaintiff worked on 

average approximately 50 hours per week and was paid on average approximately $15.25 per hour. 

However, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for all hours Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week. 

On or about April 1, 2020, Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated because he complained to 

Defendants about unpaid wages.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 1 of 7
On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff brought a three-count complaint against Defendants, alleging: 

(1) unpaid overtime wages against the Corporate Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”); (2) unpaid overtime wages against the Individual Defendant in violation 

of the FLSA; and (3) retaliatory discharge against the Corporate Defendants in violation of the 

FLSA. The Defendants filed their Motions in Limine on or about November 9, 2020, in which 

they seek to exclude eight forms of evidence from being introduced at trial. For the foregoing 

reasons, each Motion should be denied.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of a motion in limine is to “allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on 

the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., No. 

03-20482-CIV, 2010 WL 1839266, at *9 (S.D. Fla. May 6, 2010). The Federal Rules of Evidence 

govern the admissibility of evidence and require that evidence be relevant to be admissible. Fed. 

R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is 

of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence.” Reno v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 487 (1997). 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. First Motion in Limine: “Me Too” Evidence

Plaintiff should not be precluded from introducing evidence and eliciting testimony 

regarding Defendants’ failure to pay other employees overtime wages. In their Motion, Defendants 

cite to Anderson v. WBMG-42, claiming that the case stands for the notion that evidence of an 

employer’s conduct towards another employee is not relevant to an individual claim. Anderson v. 

WBMG-42, 253 F.3d 561 (11th Cir. 2001). However, this case dealt with discrimination matters 

relating to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Id. Instead, Anderson did 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 2 of 7
not deal with matters relating to wage disputes under the FLSA. As such, the Defendants have not 

sufficiently supported their argument that the so-called, “me too” evidence should be precluded in 

claims under the FLSA. In fact, “me too” evidence is relevant because it shows that the Defendants 

had notice of the FLSA's requirements and establishes that the Defendants willfully violated the 

FLSA. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion should be denied.

B. Second Motion in Limine: Testimony or Evidence Related to an Alleged Hostile Work 

Environment

Whether or not the Plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment is relevant to the 

Plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to the FLSA’s anti-retaliation and discrimination provision. 29 

U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person “to discharge or in any manner 

discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or 

caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the FLSA], or has testified or is about 

to testify in such proceeding . . . .” As a preliminary matter, Defendants fail to identify the specific 

instances of hostile work environment it seeks to prevent the introduction of. Secondly, any 

evidence of a hostile work environment is related to the Plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to the 

FLSA’s anti-retaliation and discrimination provision because the hostile work environment may 

have been caused by Plaintiff’s complaints of unpaid wages, and because the hostile work 

environment is evidence of retaliatory discharge and discrimination. Accordingly, the Defendants’ 

Motion should be denied.

C. Third Motion in Limine: Evidence Based on Rumor 

Defendants wrongfully assert that any testimony based on rumor must be made 

inadmissible. However, the statements that Defendants reference as alleged “rumors” in their 

Motion should not be precluded because Courts have found that evidence of rumors may be 

admissible to prove the fact that the rumors existed. See Jamar v. Jacobs Tech., Inc., 2012 U.S. 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 3 of 7
Dist. LEXIS 143655, *8 (N.D. Ala. 2012). In Jamar, the court found that the rumors alleged by 

the plaintiff were not relevant and, even if they were relevant, the danger of unfair prejudice 

substantially outweighed the probative value. Id. However, unlike in Jamar, the evidence in the 

present case is relevant because the three examples cited by Defendants all specifically relate to 

either wage and overtime issues or the pretextual reasons for termination. Such evidence will not 

be presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but instead, to prove the fact that the rumors 

existed. Additionally, there is significant probative value because the alleged rumors are vital to 

Plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).

Defendants also wrongfully allege that statements made amongst employees, and 

statements made by Plaintiff to other employees that he was not paid overtime wages is both 

hearsay and hearsay within hearsay. However, this argument is ill-founded, as any such statements 

may be offered for another purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted (e.g., to 

establish Defendants’ knowledge of its obligations under the FLSA, or to show Defendants’ 

motive, plan, or intent to wrongfully discharge Plaintiff). As such, Plaintiff should not be precluded 

from introducing evidence based on rumor, statements made amongst other employees, or 

statements made by Plaintiff to other employees. 

D. Fourth Motion in Limine: Evidence Related to Emotional Distress

The Defendants seek to exclude any evidence relating to any alleged emotional distress 

that the Plaintiff has faced. The Defendants cite to a case that stands for the notion that emotional 

distress is not available under the FLSA. See Bolick v. Brevard County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 937 F. 

Supp. 1560, 1566 (M.D. Fla. 1996). However, that ruling was subsequently followed by another 

case that led to a different conclusion. See Vaccaro v. Custom Sounds, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

28188, *17-18 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (finding that “compensatory damages for emotional distress can 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 4 of 7
be awarded in FLSA cases.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff should not be precluded from introducing 

evidence related to any alleged emotional distress. 

E. Fifth Motion in Limine: Other Documents and Evidence

If evidence is not clearly inadmissible, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial. 

Stewart v. Hooters of America, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44057, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2007). Here, the 

Defendants seek to exclude all evidence not produced during discovery. However, courts have 

been reluctant to grant such an overarching request. See Santiago v. Sanders, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 188987, *18 (S.D. Fla. April 16, 2015) (denying a motion in limine to exclude the use of 

documents not previously produced at trial because it is “unknown what documents, if any” a party 

may use for rebuttal or impeachment purposes); See also Indus. Eng’g & Dev. V. Static Control 

Components, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141823, *20 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (denying a motion in 

limine that sought to exclude documents not produced in discovery, because such a “blanket pretrial order is improper.”). The Defendants’ vague request is unduly burdensome on the Plaintiff 

and is not clearly inadmissible. 

F. Sixth Motion in Limine: Matters Plaintiff was Unable to Recall

Plaintiff should not be punished due to his inability remember specific, detailed facts at his 

deposition. As a preliminary matter, Defendants make the unsubstantiated allegation that “Plaintiff 

was purposely and intentionally evasive,” without any supporting evidence. However, what must 

instead be examined is that Plaintiff was understandably unable to provide the exact amount of 

hours he worked for each and every week while employed by Defendants. As stated in the 

Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged that he worked on average approximately 50 hours per week, but 

was not compensated at the lawful overtime rate. Furthermore, despite Plaintiff’s inability to 

remember this precise information at his deposition, Plaintiff may use any writing or other matter 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 5 of 7
to refresh his memory of such at trial. See Fed. R. Evi. 612. Alternatively, Defendants may likewise 

attempt to impeach Plaintiff at trial. Accordingly, it would be unfairly prejudicial to the Plaintiff 

to preclude him from testifying at trial to something that he might not have been able to recall 

during his extensive deposition.

G. Seventh Motion in Limine: Relative Size and Financial Condition of the Parties

Defendants should not be entitled to exclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence, 

statements, or arguments related to the financial condition of Defendants. Such a determination 

should instead be left for the Court when it is offered at trial. See Goussen v. Mendez Fuel Holdings 

LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190547, * (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2018) (“To the extent that Plaintiff seeks 

to paint a picture of Defendants’ general financial condition, the Court will determine the 

admissibility of such evidence when it is offered at trial.”) (internal quotations omitted). 

Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion should be denied.

H. Eighth Motion in Limine: Specific Comments

The Plaintiff should not be precluded from arguing that the jury should send a message or 

to act as the community. Arguments to the jury that include such language have been found to be 

permissible. See Tiller v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4196, *46 (M.D. Fla. 2006) 

(denying defendant’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff from asking the jury to “send a 

message” or act as “the conscience of the community.”). Accordingly, the Motion should be 

denied.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants Motion in Limine should be denied, and Plaintiff should be 

awarded any relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 6 of 7
Dated: November 23, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Aron Smukler

Aron Smukler, Esq. (FBN: 297779)

E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 7 of 7