UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-81163-CIV-MATTHEWMAN

JEFFREY LAGRASSO and

DEBORAH LAGRASSO,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SEVEN BRIDGES HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE [DE 116]

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion in Limine (“Motion”). [DE 

116]. Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to the Motion. During the July 14, 2021 status

conference, the Court heard from counsel and, in the interests of justice, granted Plaintiffs

leave to file a response over Defendant’s objection. [DE 199]. Thereafter, Plaintiffs

responded [DE 201], and Defendant replied [DE 205]. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ 

filings, the entire record, and the governing law, the Motion [DE 116] is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART, for the reasons that follow. 

This case is set for a jury trial before the undersigned on April 18, 2022. [DE 208]. The 

jury will determine Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment discrimination theory of Count I. [DE 188]. 

Specifically, the jury will determine if Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs in part due to 

their status as Christians, or at least as non-Jewish community members. Id. This is the only 

remaining claim in this case.

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 1 of 12
2

In the instant Motion [DE 116], Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument

regarding: (1) the November 22, 2019 tennis court incident and the Association’s handling of it; 

(2) Deborah LaGrasso’s Facebook posts and the Association’s actions against her; (3) the 

termination and grounds therefore of the Pro Shop Manager, Leah Nagel; (4) the September 6, 

2019 Association Fining Schedule; (5) alleged fraud in the Association’s December 2020 Board 

of Directors election; (6) audio or video evidence produced by the Plaintiffs after July 8, 2020; 

and (7) Palm Beach Post and Boca News Now articles about the Association and this litigation.

A court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly 

inadmissible on all potential grounds. Luce v. U.S., 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 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.” U.S. v. Everglades Coll., Inc., No. 12-60185-CIV, 2014 WL 

11578214, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2014); Contreras v. Aventura Limousine & Transportation 

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.”).

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 2 of 12
3

With this case law in mind, the Court will address each point in turn. 

(1) The November 22, 2019 Tennis Court Incident and the Association’s Handling 

of it

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument regarding the incident that occurred at 

the tennis court on November 22, 2019 and the Association’s handling of it. Defendant points to 

the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which found that the allegations

regarding this tennis court incident failed to state a cause of action under the Fair Housing Act

“[g]iven that there exist no allegations pertaining to religion with respect to the LaGrassos’ claim 

arising out of the tennis court incident and the Association’s handling of same.” [DE 55 at 9]. 

According to Defendant, based upon this ruling, all evidence relating to the tennis court incident 

must be excluded. Specifically, Defendant argues that such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly

prejudicial to the Association “when the Court has already ruled the LaGrassos have not stated a 

cause of action concerning the Association’s actions regarding the tennis court incident for 

religious discrimination and the jury has to rule on remaining causes of action against the 

Association.” [DE 116 at 4-5]. Defendant also argues that this evidence could mislead and

confuse the jury because there is no cause of action for the tennis court incident. 

Plaintiffs point out that, although the Court found that Plaintiffs did not state a cause of

action under the Fair Housing Act based on the alleged misconduct on the tennis court, the Court 

never found that the tennis court incident is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ overall disparate treatment 

claim. Plaintiffs’ position is that they intend to rely on circumstantial evidence to support their 

claim and this evidence allows them to paint the full picture to the jury to establish 

discriminatory conduct. Specifically, the tennis court incident was the beginning of the conduct 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 3 of 12
4

that drove Defendant to treat Plaintiffs differently. As such, Plaintiffs contend that the tennis

court incident is relevant to their case and should not be summarily excluded prior to trial. 

The Court has not previously determined that evidence relating to the tennis court 

incident and the Association’s handling of it is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment

discrimination theory of Count I. The Court does not do so now. The Eleventh Circuit has made 

clear that a party is entitled to present a mosaic of circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to infer 

intentional discrimination. Smith v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th 

Cir.2011). Here, evidence relating to the tennis court incident and the Association’s handling of 

it may very likely be relevant to Plaintiffs’ establishment of discriminatory conduct depending 

upon the progression of the evidence and testimony at trial. The jury will have to consider the 

totality of the circumstances in this case and the jury should hear all of the relevant evidence 

related to Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment theory. Any specific objections regarding the admission 

of testimony or other evidence relating to the tennis court incident and the Association’s

handling of it can only be fairly addressed during the crucible of trial on a proper and timely 

objection, and cannot be ruled upon in advance in a vacuum on a motion in limine. Therefore, the 

Motion is denied as to this issue. 

(2) Deborah LaGrasso’s Facebook Posts and the Association’s Actions Against Her 

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument of Mrs. LaGrasso’s Facebook posts 

and the Association’s actions against her. Defendant again points to the Court’s Order Denying 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which found that Mrs. LaGrasso’s posts on her “Bridges Seven”

Facebook page and the Association’s conduct of sending letters to Mrs. LaGrasso for the 

complaints did not amount to a right protected under the Fair Housing Act. [DE 55 at 14-15]. 

According to Defendant, based upon this ruling, all evidence and argument regarding the 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 4 of 12
5

“Association’s actions against Deborah LaGrasso based on her Facebook posts on her Facebook 

page and any of the Association’s sanctions related to same must be excluded a trial because 

Deborah LaGrasso’s Facebook postings are not a protected right under the [Fair Housing Act.]” 

[DE 116 at 5-6]. Defendant argues that this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to the 

Association and could mislead and confuse the jury. 

Plaintiffs point out that the Order on the parties’ supplemental briefing specifically

identified these Facebook posts as part of the basis for Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claim and 

further argue that the Court ultimately ruled that circumstantial evidence like this should be 

presented to the jury because it may allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination. [DE 188]. 

Since the Facebook posts are, in Plaintiffs’ view, unquestionably relevant to Plaintiffs’ disparate 

treatment claim, Plaintiffs request that Defendant’s Motion on this issue be denied. 

In reply, Defendant argues that Mrs. LaGrasso’s posts on Facebook, or posts and 

comments made by other community members or individuals who are not board members, are 

not conduct which is attributable to the Association. As such, evidence regarding non-board 

members’ posts or comments made on Mrs. LaGrasso’s Facebook page may prejudice the jury 

against the Association by misleading the jury to believe the Association was responsible for or 

took part in the posts. 

As to comments or posts made by non-board members, Plaintiffs have not directly 

responded to this argument, specifically raised by Defendant in reply. The Court questions 

whether posts made by non-board members would be relevant at trial absent an additional and 

sufficient nexus to Defendant or some other legitimate basis establishing relevancy. However, 

the Court cannot decide that issue in a vacuum on a motion in limine. To avoid any unfair 

prejudice or confusion of the jury at trial, Plaintiffs shall not argue, mention, or present any 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 5 of 12
6

evidence or testimony regarding posts by non-board members at trial without first obtaining 

permission from the Court outside the presence of the jury. The Court will address this issue if 

timely raised by any party at trial. 

As to Defendant’s request for an in limine ruling to exclude Mrs. LaGrasso’s posts on 

Facebook and the Association’s actions against her, the motion in limine is denied. Such

evidence appears to be relevant to establish discriminatory conduct and, as stated previously, 

Plaintiffs are entitled to present a mosaic of circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to infer 

intentional discrimination. Smith, 644 F.3d at 1328. Because this evidence is not clearly 

inadmissible on all potential grounds, it shall not be excluded pretrial, and the Court will address 

any specific issues regarding such evidence at trial upon a proper and timely objection. See Luce, 

469 U.S. at 41. 

(3) The Termination and Grounds Therefore of the Pro Shop Manager, Leah Nagel

Defendant seeks to exclude any evidence and argument regarding the termination of the 

former Tennis Pro Shop Manager at the Association, Leah Nagel, and the grounds therefore. Ms. 

Nagel was working in the Tennis Pro Shop during the November 22, 2019 tennis incident. [DE 

1]. Defendant argues that the termination of Ms. Nagel is wholly unrelated to the Plaintiffs or 

the alleged religious discrimination. Defendant’s position is that Ms. Nagel is not a plaintiff and 

her termination does not have any tendency to prove or disprove religious discriminatory intent 

and/or animus against the Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs argue against prematurely excluding evidence that may be used as 

circumstantial evidence in support of Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claim. Plaintiffs’ position is 

that evidence such as the termination of Ms. Nagel is part of the circumstantial evidence to

provide the jury with sufficient facts to infer intentional discrimination. Additionally, Plaintiffs

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 6 of 12
7

point out that Defendant does not yet know how Plaintiffs intend to present their case to the jury, 

and this type of objection should be raised at trial. Plaintiffs state that excluding relevant 

evidence because it makes Defendant look poorly to a jury is not proper grounds for a motion in 

limine.

The Court recognizes that any testimony or evidence as to the termination of Ms. Nagel 

has the potential of creating a mini trial within a trial. The Court will not allow this trial to 

address extraneous and attenuated evidence or testimony not relevant to the issues to be tried 

before the jury. However, at this juncture, the Court does not have sufficient information as to 

how Plaintiffs plan to present evidence of the termination of Ms. Nagel at trial to allow this 

Court to determine whether this evidence is relevant to Plaintiffs’ pending claim against 

Defendant. Depending upon the manner in which the trial unfolds, such testimony may or may 

not be admissible. For instance, it is possible that Ms. Nagel is a witness to certain relevant facts 

at trial, and if so, her termination may or may not be admissible depending upon her testimony in 

conjunction with other relevant trial evidence and testimony. Simply stated, the Court cannot 

decide this issue on a pretrial motion in limine. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to this 

issue. Plaintiffs are instructed that if they wish to introduce, mention, or argue such testimony or 

evidence at trial, Plaintiffs shall first seek leave of court outside the presence of the jury and the 

Court will then decide the issue during trial when more fully informed. 

(4) The September 6, 2019 Association Fining Schedule

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument regarding the September 6, 2019 

Fining Schedule. Defendant contends the September 6, 2019 Fining Schedule was not the 

Association’s fining schedule in place during the pertinent time frame of November 22, 2019 

through July 3, 2020. Defendant argues that the admission of this evidence would mislead the 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 7 of 12
8

jury to incorrectly believe that the September 6, 2019 Fining Schedule was in effect when the 

Association made decisions concerning Mrs. LaGrasso and would unfairly prejudice the 

Association. 

Plaintiffs argue that this evidence is very relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs will present evidence in support of its disparate treatment claims that no resident of the 

Seven Bridges community had ever had the fines and/or suspensions levied against them like the 

Plaintiffs had. This is, according to Plaintiffs, directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that they

were treated differently on account of their religion. Plaintiffs’ position is that excluding critical 

evidence such as this would severely prejudice Plaintiffs during trial. 

The Court finds that evidence in support of Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claim that no 

resident of the community was fined or suspended in the same manner as Plaintiffs is likely

relevant to this case. The September 6, 2019 Fining Schedule is not clearly inadmissible on all 

potential grounds, and the Court will rule on any specific objections on this point if timely raised 

at trial. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to this issue. If such testimony or evidence is 

admitted, Defendant will have the opportunity at trial to present evidence that the September 6, 

2019 Fining Schedule was not the schedule in effect when the Association made decisions 

concerning Mrs. LaGrasso. Therefore, the Motion on this issue is denied.

(5) Alleged Fraud in the Association’s December 2020 Board of Directors Elections

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence or argument regarding alleged fraud in the 

Association’s December 2020 Board of Directors elections, which occurred over four months 

after Mrs. LaGrasso’s fining and second suspension by the Association on July 8, 2020 and after 

the instant Complaint was filed on July 16, 2020. Defendant argues that such evidence is not 

relevant because alleged fraud in a board election has no bearing or relationship to religion, to

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 8 of 12
9

the Plaintiffs, or to discrimination. Defendant argues that this evidence is prejudicial, has no 

probative value, and would not allow a jury to infer intentional religious discrimination by the 

Association against the Plaintiffs. Moreover, this evidence would mislead and confuse the jury 

when the election at issue took place months after the relevant time frame in the Complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ position is that evidence of fraud in the Association’s December 2020 Board of 

Directors election provides circumstantial evidence of disparate treatment. Defendant notes that

the Board of Directors in place during the relevant timeframe included an exclusively Jewish 

composition, and their actions against the Christian Plaintiffs is critical to Plaintiffs’ case. 

The Court doubts the relevancy of evidence relating to the alleged fraud in the 

Association’s December 2020 Board of Directors elections. This evidence seems too remote and 

attenuated unless, for example, a trial witness is alleged to have engaged in the fraud or unless 

the fraud was directly related to Plaintiffs. However, at this juncture, the Court does not have 

sufficient information as to how Plaintiffs plan to present this evidence at trial to determine 

whether this evidence is relevant to Plaintiffs’ pending claim against Defendant. Accordingly, 

although the Court will not exclude this evidence pretrial on a motion in limine, Plaintiffs are 

instructed that if they wish to introduce, mention, or argue such evidence or testimony at trial,

Plaintiffs shall first seek leave of court outside the presence of the jury. The Court will rule 

further on this point if timely raised at trial. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to introduce 

news articles about the alleged election fraud, the Court is not inclined to permit this type of 

evidence at trial, as typically news articles contain inadmissible hearsay and are otherwise 

inadmissible. Therefore, the same ruling applies to the news articles as applies to the claim of 

fraud discussed in this paragraph.

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 9 of 12
10

(6) Audio or Video Evidence After July 8, 2020

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument of audio or video recordings

produced by the Plaintiffs after July 8, 2020. Defendant states that the Association took its final 

action against Mrs. LaGrasso on July 8, 2020, and on July 16, 2020 the LaGrasso filed the 

instant lawsuit. Defendant asserts that since the filing of the instant lawsuit, the LaGrassos, for 

the first time on January 11, 2021, provided the full recordings of seven audio and video 

recordings of: (a) nonboard member, Rachel Aboud Tannenholz, outside of the LaGrassos’ 

home, (b) vehicles driving in front of the LaGrassos’ home, and (c) a telephone conference 

between Mrs. LaGrasso and Ms. Tannenholz. Defendant argues the admission of this evidence

would be misleading to the jury because the jury may believe that the Association was in 

possession of and viewed these audio and video files when making its decisions relating to 

sanctioning Mrs. LaGrasso. Defendant asserts that the Association only had in its possession for 

consideration the video provided for viewing on a cell phone at the February 2020 Compliance 

Committee hearing, an incomplete audio recording of Ms. Tannenholz on the LaGrassos’

property, and a video of Ms. Tannenholz and her daughter on the LaGrassos’ property, which is 

the evidence the Association used to make its decisions. Therefore, admission of these 

recordings results in unfair prejudice to the Association, and they should be excluded at trial.

Plaintiffs contend that these recordings are highly relevant to the proceedings and the

date they were produced is irrelevant. Plaintiffs state that these recordings were inflammatory 

and religiously charged, and fully support Plaintiffs’ claim that they were treated differently, at 

least in part, on account of religion. As such, Plaintiffs should be permitted to introduce this 

evidence to the jury.

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 10 of 12
11

The Court will address any objections to such evidence at trial. Mr. LaGrasso apparently 

advised in a letter that they had “video and audio recordings of Ms. Tannenholz engaging in 

repeated and protracted harassing and discriminatory conduct including trespassing upon our 

property, loitering and waiting outside of our home, shouting from the front yard, making antisemitic statements and slanderous comments and stalking my wife both physically and online.”

[DE 178 at 4]. In addition, on June 8, 2020, Mr. LaGrasso forwarded a portion of the audio 

recording of Mrs. LaGrasso and Ms. Tannenholz’s telephone conversation in which Ms. 

Tannenholz allegedly made the remarks about Plaintiffs moving out of the predominantly Jewish 

neighborhood because they did not belong and were hated there. Id. The videos may be relevant 

to support Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claims. If they are admitted, Defendant can provide

testimony that will clarify what the Association viewed and what the Association did not view in 

response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints. Moreover, the fact that the Association did not seek out 

the complete recordings may allow a jury to infer how the Association handled Plaintiffs’

complaints, which is circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Accordingly, the Motion is 

denied as to this issue. 

(7) Palm Beach Post and Boca News Now Articles About the Association and This

Litigation

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument of Palm Beach Post and Boca News

Now articles about the Association and this litigation. Defendant contends that the instant lawsuit 

has been, and will likely continue to be, the subject of articles in the Palm Beach Post newspaper 

as well as the online news outlet Boca News Now. The Boca News Now articles also contain 

statements from prior co-defense counsel, partial citations to pleadings in the instant lawsuit and

opinion of the author regarding issues in the instant lawsuit. Defendant argues that any and all 

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 11 of 12
12

newspaper articles, online articles, or the like and all evidence regarding or relating to these 

articles should be excluded at trial because they are hearsay, would mislead to the jury, and 

would unfairly prejudice the Association. Plaintiffs agree that these articles should not come into 

evidence at trial. 

The Court likewise agrees. As noted above, news articles typically contain inadmissible 

hearsay and other inadmissible comments or statements. Moreover, news articles about this 

litigation are not relevant to establish Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claim and would mislead to

the jury. As such, evidence, argument, or comment related to any such news articles shall be 

excluded at trial, and the Motion is granted as to this issue. 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 

Florida, this 15th day of September 2021.

_________________________________

William Matthewman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:20-cv-81163-WM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2021 Page 12 of 12