1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PIXLER’S MOTION IN LIMINE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MIKE KREIDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY L. PIXLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0697RSL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PIXLER’S

MOTION IN LIMINE

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Danny Pixler’s motion in limine

to preclude the introduction of certain evidence and testimony. Specifically, he seeks to

preclude introduction of (1) any reference to offers to settle or compromise under Federal

Rule of Evidence 408; (2) any argument that Pixler “obtained, converted, stole, or in any

way came into possession of any money” that was owed to Cascade; (3) any argument or

inferences at trial based on the fact that defendant will not appear or testify on his own

behalf; (4) any reference to defendant’s assets or financial ability to pay a judgment; (5)

any reference by counsel concerning their personal beliefs as to their client’s credibility;

and (6) the fact that this motion has been filed. Plaintiff does not object to the fifth and

sixth items, so any such references are prohibited. At the parties’ request, the Court heard

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 267 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PIXLER’S MOTION IN LIMINE - 2

oral argument in this matter on April 12, 2010. 

A. Conviction-Related Evidence.

Plaintiff does not plan to offer any offers of settlement or compromise from this

case, and he would be precluded from doing so under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. 

Rather, plaintiff may seek to introduce a “Litigation Release” from the Securities and

Exchange Commission (“SEC”) titled, “Court Enters Final Judgment of Permanent

Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendant Danny L. Pixler.” Declaration of Diana

Dearmin (Dkt. #222), Ex. 1. The admissibility of the Litigation Release turns on the

admissibility of Pixler’s guilty plea, which is the subject of a separate motion. Similarly,

Pixler seeks to exclude references about his absence at trial. The Court will address those

issues in connection with Pixler’s motion in limine regarding his criminal conviction.

B. Financial Allegations.

Pixler seeks to exclude as irrelevant allegations that he obtained money to which

he was not entitled. Those allegations, however, are directly relevant to plaintiff’s

primary contention in this case: that all of the defendants, including Pixler, wrongfully

took and/or diverted workers’ compensation premiums due to Cascade. Although Pixler

argues that there is a lack of evidence to support that claim against him, the issue of the

merits is separate from the issue of relevance. Moreover, the Court denied defendants’

motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of misappropriation, conversion, theft

of premiums, unjust enrichment, violations of the Criminal Profiteering Act, and civil

conspiracy. The allegations are relevant to those claims, and plaintiff is entitled to

attempt to prove them at trial. Accordingly, the Court will not exclude allegations on this

topic.

Pixler also seeks to exclude under Rule 403 evidence regarding his assets and

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 267 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PIXLER’S MOTION IN LIMINE - 3

ability to pay a judgment. Although Pixler claims that the information is prejudicial, he

does not explain why. For that reason, the Court will focus on the relevancy issue as the

parties did. Plaintiff counters that it does not intend to present any evidence to establish

Pixler’s ability to pay a judgment. Rather, it plans to introduce the Statement of Net

Worth Pixler submitted to insurance regulators in support of the Cascade transaction. 

Plaintiff contends, and the Court agrees, that the statement is relevant to whether Pixler

presented truthful information to regulators, which is relevant to plaintiff’s claims of civil

conspiracy and violations of the Consumer Protection Act and Criminal Profiteering Act. 

It is also relevant to Pixler’s credibility. Furthermore, any evidence that Pixler or his wife

received funds diverted from Cascade is relevant to the theft and conspiracy-related

claims. The probative value of the information outweighs any vague assertion of

prejudice. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, Pixler’s motion in limine (Dkt. #221) is 

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 267 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The Court notes that the findings and conclusions in this order, like all rulings in

limine, are preliminary and can be revisited at trial based on the facts and evidence as

they are actually presented. See, e.g., Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984)

(explaining that a ruling in limine “is subject to change when the case unfolds,

particularly if the actual testimony differs from what was contained in the proffer. Indeed

even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of

sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.”). Subject to these

principles, the Court issues this ruling for the guidance of the parties.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PIXLER’S MOTION IN LIMINE - 4

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.1 

DATED this 15th day of April, 2010.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 267 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 4