UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22603-GOODMAN

[CONSENT] 

ERIC CHAVEZ and 

LEONEL DIAZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GRILL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a

Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a

Los Parrilleros and Parrilleros Tavern, and 

RUBEN SIERRA, individually,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs filed [ECF No. 138] a motion in limine and Defendants filed [ECF No. 139] 

an opposition response.

The Court denies the motion’s request to exclude witnesses. With the exception of 

only one witness (i.e., Cesar Pacheco), all witnesses on Defendants’ updated trial list 

were, in fact, identified in Defendants’ original or supplemental answer to Interrogatory 

No. 13. So there is no reason to exclude them.

Concerning Mr. Pacheco, Defendants claim that they did not appreciate his 

“significance” to the case until after they served their original and supplemental answers 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

to Interrogatory No. 13. This is not persuasive. Defendants should have timely disclosed 

him in their interrogatory answers. However, given that Plaintiffs listed him on their own 

witness list and therefore know (and have known) of his involvement, Defendants’ 

omission does not generate prejudice to Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court will not exclude 

Mr. Pacheco as a trial witness for Defendants.

Plaintiffs also seek to exclude expert testimony from lay witnesses. But they do not 

provide any specifics. The request is vague and conclusory. At bottom, Plaintiffs say they 

are concerned that Defendants might do this, but they have not mentioned any specific 

witnesses or testimony.

Defendants’ principals and executives may testify about how payroll was processed 

and if they believed the payroll procedures used were lawful. Of course, Plaintiffs are

entitled to vigorously cross-examine these defense witnesses about their beliefs and may 

also introduce a contrary view from a timely and adequately disclosed expert (and the 

expert report).

The Court denies, as moot, Plaintiffs’ request to exclude evidence about a national 

origin charge of discrimination filed by Plaintiff Erik Chavez, as Defendants have 

acknowledged publicly and in writing that they do not intend to use the charge as an 

exhibit. Although Defendants’ response does not also expressly say that they will not seek 

to question witnesses about the discrimination charge, the Undersigned views that 

scenario as an implicit representation (from the concession to not use the exhibit) that 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2023 Page 2 of 3
3 

such attempts will not in fact be made.

Plaintiffs’ motion also seeks to exclude hearsay, though it mentions only one specific 

circumstance: Defendant Ruben Sierra’s purported oral statement to some employees, 

including Plaintiffs, of the tip credit. This statement, assuming it was made, is not 

hearsay, though. It is not evidence designed to prove that Defendants actually took the tip 

credit. Instead, it is merely being offered to prove that Mr. Sierra provided the requisite 

oral notice through his comments. This is not being offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted. It is being provided to establish notice. The Undersigned therefore rejects this 

portion of Plaintiffs’ motion in limine (concerning statements allegedly made by Sierra to 

employees about the tip credit).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on April 13, 2023. 

Copies furnished to: 

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2023 Page 3 of 3