UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23270-DAMIAN

VICTOR MANUEL CORONEL RAMIREZ, 

and all others similar situated under 29 U.S.C. §216(b), 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

ROSALIA’S INC., et al., 

 

Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

ORDER ON PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS IN LIMINE [ECF NOS. 89, 90]

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants, Rosalia’s Inc., Kosmas A. Kalas, 

and Manuel Pacucar’s (collectively, “Defendants”), Motion in Limine (“Defendant’s 

Motion”) and Plaintiff, Victor Manuel Coronel Ramirez’s (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Ramirez”), 

Omnibus Motion in Limine (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). [ECF Nos. 89, 90].1

THE COURT has reviewed the motions [ECF Nos. 89, 90], the responses and replies 

thereto [ECF Nos. 92, 93, 95], the pertinent portions of the record, and all relevant authorities 

and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, the Motions in 

Limine [ECF No. 89, 90] are granted in part and denied in part. 

1 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ Consent to Proceed Before a 

United States Magistrate Judge, in which the parties jointly and voluntarily elected to have 

the undersigned conduct all further proceedings in this case. [ECF No. 80]. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c).

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In this case, Mr. Ramirez alleges that he was employed by Defendants as a cook at 

Defendant Rosalia’s from July 2005 to January 2020 and that, between the period of May 

2017 to January 2020, Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay him overtime 

wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. [ECF 

No.1-2 (“Complaint”)] at ¶¶ 16, 22-23.

In their defense, Defendants assert, inter alia, that Mr. Ramirez’s damages are barred 

by Section 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 260, because they acted in good faith 

and with reasonable grounds for believing that they were not violating the FLSA. [ECF No. 

4] at ¶ 6. Defendants also contend that Mr. Ramirez was exempt from FLSA overtime wage 

laws as a salaried employee with managerial responsibilities. Id. at 4. 

On September 19, 2022, the parties filed their Cross-Motions in Limine, which are 

now ripe for adjudication. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. Equity 

Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1243 (11th Cir. 2009). 

“Motions in limine are generally disfavored” and “[e]vidence is properly excluded only if the 

evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Baptista v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:17-CV22115-KMM, 2018 WL 1226041, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2018) (Moore, C.J.) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). “The real purpose of a Motion [i]n Limine is to give the 

trial judge notice of the movant’s position so as to avoid the introduction of damaging 

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 2 of 10
3 

evidence which may irretrievably effect the fairness of the trial.” Stewart v. Hooters of Am., Inc., 

No. 8:04-CV-40-T-17-MAP, 2007 WL 1752843, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2007) (citing Luce 

v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984)). “Unless evidence meets this high standard, 

evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, 

and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 

Nos. 6:06-md-1769-Orl-22DAB, 6:07-cv-15733-Orl-22DAB, 2009 WL 260989, at *1 (M.D. 

Fla. Feb. 4, 2009). A court’s order on the motion “remains subject to reconsideration by the 

court throughout the trial.” Id. (“At trial, the court may alter its limine ruling based on 

developments at trial or on its sound judicial discretion.”) (citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41). The 

movant has the burden to demonstrate that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant 

ground. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court will first address the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion and then turn to 

the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion. 

A. Issues Raised In Defendants’ Motion In Limine

Defendants seek to exclude all argument, references, evidence, or testimony at trial as 

to two issues: (1) other FLSA actions brought against other restaurants owned by individual 

Defendants Kosmas A. Kalas and Manuel Pacuacar; and (2) other entities owned by Messrs. 

Kalas and Pacuacar. Defs. Mot. at 1. 

1. Reference To Other FLSA Actions

Defendants argue that evidence or testimony regarding any lawsuits against other 

restaurants owned by the individual Defendants must be excluded because such evidence is 

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

irrelevant to the case at issue and unduly prejudicial. Id. at 3. Defendants contend that 

excluding evidence of other lawsuits against the individual Defendants is particularly required 

here, where the other lawsuits were not brought against the entity Defendant, Rosalia’s Inc., 

and where this case differs from a standard FLSA claim because of Defendants’ affirmative 

defense that Mr. Ramirez is an exempt employee under the FLSA. Id. at 4. 

In response, Mr. Ramirez indicates that he has listed nine other FLSA lawsuits filed 

against Rosalia’s and other entities owned by the individual Defendants as exhibits for trial 

for the purpose of showing that Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were reckless and/or 

intentional and that Defendants did not act in good faith when violating the FLSA. Resp. to 

Defs. Mot. at 2-4. Mr. Ramirez argues that he must prove that Defendants recklessly or 

willfully violated the FLSA in order to extend the statute of limitations of his claims from two 

years to three. Id. at 2 (citing Davila vs. Mendez, 717 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2013)). And Mr. 

Ramirez contends that whether Defendants acted in good faith is relevant to their FLSA safe 

harbor defense against liquidated damages. Id. at 2-3 (citing Rodriguez vs. Farm Stores, 518 

F.3d, 1259 (11th Cir. 2008)). Mr. Ramirez also claims that any reference to these other 

lawsuits at trial will be brief and will not lead to “mini-trials” of those other cases. Id. at 3.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to 

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of 

consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence is generally 

admissible and irrelevant evidence is not admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. But even when 

evidence is relevant, courts may exclude it “if its probative value is substantially outweighed 

by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the jury,” among 

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 4 of 10
5 

others. Fed. R. Evid. 403. “Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used 

sparingly, and the trial court's discretion to exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial is 

“narrowly circumscribed.” United States v. Cross, 928 F.2d 1030, 1048 (11th Cir. 1991). 

Moreover, prior acts of a party, such as previous lawsuits, are generally not permitted to prove 

the character of a party on a particular occasion, though they can be used to prove motive, 

intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Even so, the probative value 

must outweigh the prejudicial effect that prior act may have on a present case. Fed. R. Evid. 

403. 

Although evidence of prior FLSA lawsuits against the Defendants may be relevant to 

the issues of whether Defendants’ violations were reckless and/or intentional and whether 

Defendants acted in good faith, at this point, the Court finds that such evidence is more 

prejudicial than it is probative of these issues. Plaintiff may prove Defendants’ knowledge, 

intent, and lack of good faith through other admissible evidence of Defendants’ prior actions. 

Therefore, Defendants’ request to exclude such evidence at trial is granted. In the event 

the issue of whether Defendants have ever previously been sued or involved in investigations

or litigation on similar FLSA issues becomes an issue, Plaintiff may request permission to 

revisit this issue with the Court outside the hearing of the jury. 

2. Reference To Other Entities Owned By Defendants

Defendants also argue that evidence or testimony regarding the individual 

Defendants’ ownership of any entity other than Defendant Rosalia’s is not relevant and will 

prejudice the jury into assuming that Defendants are wealthy and can support a judgment.

Defs. Mot. at 4-5. 

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

In response, Mr. Ramirez asserts a similar argument to the one above—that the 

individual Defendants’ ownership of other restaurants is evidence of their experience in the 

restaurant industry and with the FLSA, which is relevant to the issues of whether Defendants’ 

violations of the FLSA were reckless and/or intentional and whether they acted in good faith.

Resp. to Def. Mot. at 3.

The Court finds that Defendants’ ownership of other entities is relevant to the issues

in this case, including whether Defendants’ violations were reckless and/or intentional and 

whether they acted in good faith. The Court further finds that the fact that Defendants have 

other restaurants is not unduly prejudicial. However, Plaintiff will not be permitted to delve

into details about the other restaurants, such as earnings or profits, nor will Plaintiff be 

permitted to present evidence regarding investigations or lawsuits against those other 

restaurants as set forth above, as such evidence would be unduly prejudicial.

Therefore, the Court denies in part Defendants’ request to exclude such evidence. 

However, in the event issues concerning the other restaurants’ financials or other details about 

them become an issue, Plaintiff may request permission to revisit this issue with the Court 

outside the hearing of the jury. 

B. Issues Raised In Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence or testimony regarding the following:

a) Any references to attorneys’ fees and costs;

b) Any reference to liquidated damages;

c) Any reference to Mr. Ramirez’s Counsel and the Firm’s representation of Mr. 

Ramirez;

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 6 of 10
7 

d) Any reference to Mr. Ramirez’s immigration status;

e) Reference to Mr. Ramirez’s arrests, convictions, pleas of nolo contendere, and 

pending criminal cases, if any;

f) Reference to Mr. Ramirez’s use of a false social security number; and 

g) Reference to any sexual harassment complaints by other employees.

Pl. Mot. at 1. Defendants do not oppose exclusion of evidence regarding (a) – (e) but do 

oppose exclusion of evidence regarding Mr. Ramirez’s use of a false social security number 

and sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Ramirez by other employees. Resp. to Pl. Mot. 

at 2. The Court addresses these two remaining issues below. 

1. Reference To Mr. Ramirez’s Use Of A False Social Security Number

Mr. Ramirez seeks to exclude any reference to his use of a false social security number 

on grounds such reference is a “back door” way to advise the jury of Mr. Ramirez’s

immigration status, which the parties agreed would not be brought up at trial. Pl. Mot. at 8. 

In response, Defendants assert that whether Mr. Ramirez used a false social security 

number should be allowed for impeachment purposes because it is probative of Mr. Ramirez’s

character for truthfulness. Resp. to Pl. Mot. at 5.

Rule 608 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that a court may permit evidence 

of “specific instances of a witness’ conduct” on cross-examination if such instances “are 

probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of [ ] the witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 

608(b). “Acts probative of untruthfulness under Rule 608(b) include such acts as forgery, 

perjury, and fraud.” Ad-Vantage Tel. Directory Consultants v. GTE Directories Corp., 37 F.3d 1460, 

1464 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 7 of 10
8 

The use of false identification documents, such as a social security number, is an act 

probative of untruthfulness. Therefore, Defendants are permitted to ask Mr. Ramirez whether 

he used a false social security number for impeachment purposes only. See Rakip v. Paradise 

Awnings Corp., No. 10-20004-CIV, 2011 WL 6029981, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011) (Cooke, 

J.) (finding that counsel properly impeached witness when asking him about his use of 

someone else’s social security number). Defendants will not be permitted to delve into 

Ramirez’s immigration status and, as such, will not be permitted to ask Mr. Ramirez why he 

obtained a false social security number. 

Plaintiff’s request to exclude evidence that Mr. Ramirez used a false social security 

number is, therefore, denied. 

2. Reference To Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Mr. Ramirez

Mr. Ramirez also seeks to exclude any reference to sexual harassment complaints

asserted against him by other employees on grounds that such evidence has no relevance to 

the issues in this case and would be unfairly prejudicial to him. Pl. Mot. at 9. 

In response, Defendants contend that evidence related to sexual harassment 

complaints against Mr. Ramirez is relevant because the complaints were raised by a 

subordinate employee and such evidence includes documents that Mr. Ramirez signed 

identifying himself as a “Head Chef.” Resp. to Pl. Mot. at 6. Whether Mr. Ramirez supervised 

other employees is a requirement of the Executive Exemption of the FLSA, which is a 

primary issue in this case, and, therefore, Defendants assert it would be an error to prevent 

presentation of evidence on this issue. Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

The Court finds that the danger of unfair prejudice that will likely result from the 

introduction of such evidence substantially outweighs any probative value the evidence offers 

to the issue of whether Mr. Ramirez supervised other employees. Defendants can demonstrate 

that Mr. Ramirez was a managerial employee through witness testimonies or other evidence 

less prejudicial than sexual harassment complaints. Moreover, Defendants may offer evidence 

that Mr. Ramirez identified himself as “Head Chef” in a letter to Defendants, marked as 

Exhibit 5 for identification in Defendant’s Exhibit List, without disclosing the subject matter 

of the letter. 

As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted as to exclusion of references to sexual 

harassment claims as set forth above. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine [ECF No. 89] 

is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1) Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to evidence or testimony regarding any 

lawsuits against other restaurants owned by the individual Defendants;

2) Defendants’ Motion is DENIED IN PART as to evidence or testimony regarding

individual Defendants’ ownership of any entity other than Defendant Rosalia’s, 

except that Plaintiff will not be permitted to delve into details about the other 

restaurants nor present evidence regarding investigations or lawsuits against those

other restaurants as set forth above.

It is further

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 9 of 10
10 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion in Limine [ECF No. 

90] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and Defendants are precluded from offering

evidence at trial as to the following: 

a) Any references to attorneys’ fees and costs;

b) Any reference to liquidated damages;

c) Any reference to Mr. Ramirez’s Counsel and the Firm’s representation of Mr. 

Ramirez; 

d) Any reference to Mr. Ramirez’s immigration status;

e) Reference to Mr. Ramirez’s arrests, convictions, pleas of nolo contendere, and 

pending criminal cases, if any; and 

f) Reference to any sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Ramirez by other 

employees as set forth above. 

2) Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to any reference to Mr. 

Ramirez’s use of a false social security number. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of October

2022. 

 

____________________________________ 

 MELISSA DAMIAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23270-MD Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 10 of 10