In Kane v. DG Express, the United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a defendant commercial transportation company's motion in limine to preclude a punitive damages claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. Ultimately, the Middle District determined that motions in limine are an improper method of seeking dispositive relief, such as dismissal of a punitive damages claim. The Court stated that the appropriate method would have been through an earlier motion for summary judgment or at the initial pleadings stage through a motion to dismiss.
The issue of identifying the appropriate method for dispositive or partially dispositive relief has been a point of contention in recent years as defendant transportation companies are cautious of identifying their position and defenses too early in litigation, including even at the summary judgment stage should such a motion be denied. In recent years, defendants have been using motions in limine to seek relief, such as the dismissal of certain counts of the plaintiffs' complaints, including punitive damages claims, to avoid the typical plaintiff oppositions to such motions when made as summary judgment motions. To that end, by the time motions in limine are typically filed immediately preceding trial, a plaintiff can no longer seek to amend a pleading or seek additional discovery. However, it appears based upon recent rulings, including the Middle District's ruling in Kane v. DG Express, that plaintiffs and the Courts are no longer permitting such motions in limine and would rather address these issues earlier in the litigation.
Notably, this issue has also been a point of contention in New Jersey State and Federal Courts in recent years in which the Courts appear to be in alignment with the decision in Kane v. DG Express that such motions in limine are too late in the litigation to seek such dispositive relief. Therefore, it is incumbent upon defendants and their counsel to identify any and all options for dispositive relief during the discovery phase of litigation and to seek such relief as soon as possible to ensure the Court will hear the motion on its merits as opposed to denying for procedural issues, such as alleged untimeliness.
For more information, please contact Ryan J. Mowll at 856.382.1006 or rmowll@wglaw.com.
Disclaimer: The contents of this post are for informational purposes only, are not legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship.