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 MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL AND SEC MATTERS - 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 MOTIONS IN

LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL

AND SEC MATTERS

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

to preclude four categories of evidence related to alleged prior wrongs: (1) Pixler’s

criminal plea of guilty to the crime of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, (2) documents

and testimony regarding a proceeding by the United States Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida against Pixler and Huff, (3) expunged charges against Pixler arising out of a

California corporate bankruptcy filing, and (4) “any other civil or criminal matters in

which Pixler is or was a party,” with the exception of Certified’s bankruptcy proceeding. 

Motion at p. 2. At the parties’ request, the Court heard oral argument in this matter on

April 12, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 266 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 6
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 MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL AND SEC MATTERS - 2

Pixler contends that evidence regarding all four matters is inadmissible under

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which provides:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character

of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be

admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . .

While Pixler contends that evidence of alleged prior wrongs is part of a “smear

campaign” against him, plaintiff argues that the evidence is relevant and admissible.

A. Criminal Conviction.

In April 2009, Pixler pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 371. Subsequently, he was sentenced to five years in prison, and he is

currently serving that sentence. Pixler requests that the Court exclude any testimony or

reference to the case of United States v. Pixler, 08-60171-CR-ZLOCH, which was

adjudicated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In

plaintiff’s pretrial statement, he identifies several documents from that matter that he

apparently will seek to introduce in the trial in this case, including: (1) statements made

during the plea bargaining process, (2) the judgment, (3) the indictment, (4) the

superceding information, and (5) the transcript of the sentencing. Pixler contends that

none of the information or documents is relevant in this case.

The Court considers the documents relevant and admissible. Plaintiff argues that

evidence regarding the prior conviction is relevant because it bears on Pixler’s credibility. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) provides that “evidence that any witness has been

convicted of a crime shall be admitted regardless of the punishment, if it readily can be

determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an

act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness.” The Court may not exclude evidence

that is admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) even if it is prejudicial. See, e.g., Green v. Bock

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 266 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 6
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 MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL AND SEC MATTERS - 3

Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 526-27 (1989). Although Pixler contends that his

guilty plea was a tactical choice, not a conviction, the law does not support his contention. 

See, e.g., Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969) (explaining that a plea is “itself a

conviction”). Pixler contends that the crime of conspiracy to commit wire fraud does not

involve an act of dishonesty or false statement by him. Wire fraud involves a false

statement because misrepresentation is an element of the crime. See, e.g., United States

v. Pritchard, 773 F.2d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 1985). The crime of conspiracy involves

dishonesty or a false statement. 84 ALR5th 487 at p. 617 (citing Hebert v. Hartford Ins.

Co. of the Midwest, 649 So. 2d 631, 633 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994) (affirming trial

court’s denial of a request to exclude a guilty plea; stating that crimes involving

conspiracy “clearly involve dishonesty or false statement”)). Moreover, the crime of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud involves dishonesty because the conspirators conspired

to commit fraud. During the criminal proceeding, Pixler’s counsel stated that Pixler

“provided representations to his clients that they were going to be receiving insurance for

state workers’ comp. However, he was not providing that.” Declaration of Donald

Cohen (Dkt. #232), Ex. D. Evidence of the prior conviction is therefore admissible under

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) for impeachment purposes.

Even if the conviction were not admissible under Rule 609, it would be admissible

under Rule 404(b), which provides that evidence of prior crimes may be admissible for

other purposes, including proving motive, opportunity, preparation, and plan. The prior

conviction is relevant to Pixler’s motives because it shows that defendants sought out

Cascade because they were in urgent need of another insurer. The prior conviction also

shows preparation, plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident because in both

instances, Pixler allegedly collected workers’ compensation premiums from clients and

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 266 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 6
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 MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL AND SEC MATTERS - 4

diverted the premiums.

B. SEC Matter.

Pixler seeks to exclude evidence and testimony regarding the matter of SEC v.

Huff, et. al., including a Litigation Release on the SEC’s website that states, “Pixler

consented to entry of the judgment without admitting or denying any of the allegations in

the complaint.” Pixler’s Motion at p. 4. The Litigation Release also references the fact

that on May 7, 2008, a district judge in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida entered a final judgment of permanent injunction against Pixler. 

Declaration of Diana Dearmin (Dkt. #222), Ex. 1.

Pixler contends that the Litigation Release is neither authenticated nor relevant. 

The record contains very little evidence about the SEC matter or the SEC’s allegations

against Pixler. Plaintiff has not listed any potential trial witnesses from the SEC to testify

regarding the document and SEC matter. In addition to the paucity of information,

plaintiff has not explained how the 2008 injunction is relevant to the wrongdoing in this

case, which primarily occurred in 2004 and 2005. For example, although the injunction

apparently precluded Pixler from holding a position as an officer or a director of certain

corporations, there is no evidence that he did so after the injunction was issued. In

addition to the minimal showing of relevancy, introduction of the Litigation Release

would be unduly prejudicial and potentially confusing for the jury. For those reasons, the

Court will exclude it.

C. California Bankruptcy Matter.

Pixler seeks to exclude any testimony, evidence, or reference to expunged charges

against him arising out of a California corporate bankruptcy filing in which, he contends,

the bankruptcy attorney failed to release checks for payment by the corporate debtor. 

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 266 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 6
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 MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL AND SEC MATTERS - 5

Plaintiff has not identified any documents or testimony he seeks to present regarding the

matter, so it appears that the issue is moot. Regardless, because the conviction was

expunged, plaintiff has not shown its relevance, or that its relevance would outweigh the

potential prejudice. Accordingly, the Court will exclude any evidence regarding or

reference to the matter.

D. Other Matters.

Pixler’s request to exclude evidence regarding “any other civil or criminal matters

in which Pixler is or was a party,” is too vague to assess, so the Court denies that request. 

After the parties filed their memoranda, plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum

noting that on October 28, 2009, new federal criminal charges were filed against Pixler in

Florida for alleged federal tax violations. Plaintiff notes that he will seek to have that

charge, and any subsequent conviction, admitted into evidence in this case. Because there

has not yet been a conviction or guilty plea, the issue is premature. The Court will not

admit evidence of what is, at this point, just allegations. The Court may revisit the issue

is those circumstances change. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, Pixler’s motions in limine (Dkt. #219, #220) are 

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 266 Filed 04/15/10 Page 5 of 6
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 MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE REGARDING CRIMINAL AND SEC MATTERS - 6

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 266 Filed 04/15/10 Page 6 of 6