United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court discussed the background of this case in prior
opinions. See, e.g. Regions Commercial Equip. Fin., LLC
v. Performance Aviation, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-110-KS-JCG,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96658 (S.D.Miss. July 22, 2016);
Regions Commercial Equip. Fin., LLC v. Performance
Aviation, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-110-KS-JCG, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 154782 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 8, 2016). Each side of this
dispute filed a Motion in Limine [98, 101]. For the reasons
provided below, the Court denies both
Defendants' Motion in Limine  and Plaintiff's
Motion in Limine .
Defendants' Motion in Limine 
Election of Remedy
Defendants argue that the Court should prevent Plaintiff from
revoking its elected remedy and seeking money damages rather
than possession of the unsold aircraft.
do not seek an evidentiary ruling. Rather, they seek a
dispositive ruling as to a specific remedy and/or element of
damages. “The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow
the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the
admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted
evidence.” Harkness v. Bauhaus USA, Inc., 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17926, 2015 WL 631512, at *1 (N.D. Miss.
Feb. 13, 2015). A “motion in limine is not a substitute
for a motion for summary judgment.” Fos v. Wal-Mart
Stores East, LP, No. 3:12-CV-735-LG-JCG, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 179878, at *7 (S.D.Miss. June 2, 2015); see also
United States v. Dawn Props., No. 1:14-CV-224-LG-JCG,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172141, at *9 (S.D.Miss. Dec. 13,
2016); Marlow LLC v. Bellsouth Telcoms., Inc., No.
2:10-CV-135-KS-MTP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446, at *9-*10
(S.D.Miss. Jan. 9, 2016). Therefore, the Court denies this
aspect of Defendants' motion in limine.
Matters Not Disclosed in Discovery
seek the exclusion of all exhibits which have not been
authenticated, all witnesses not disclosed, all testimony not
disclosed, and all expert opinions not disclosed during
purpose of motions in limine is not to re-iterate matters
which are set forth elsewhere in the Rules of Civil Procedure
or Rules of Evidence, but, rather, to identify
specific issues which are likely to arise at trial,
and which, due to their complexity or potentially prejudicial
nature, are best addressed in the context of a motion in
limine.” Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 58077, 2011 WL 2134578, at *4 (N.D. Miss. May 21,
2011). Therefore, the Court denies this aspect of
Defendants' motion in limine without prejudice to
Defendants' right to raise specific issues at trial.
seek the exclusion of all evidence related to Plaintiff's
attorney's fees, apparently on the basis that Plaintiff
is not entitled to attorney's fees. As noted above, a
“motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion for
summary judgment.” Fos, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
179878 at *7. The Court denies this aspect of Defendants'
motion in limine.
argue that Plaintiff should be barred from seeking any
monetary damages. As noted above, a “motion in limine
is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.”
Id. The Court denies this aspect of Defendants'
motion in limine.