Wingard v. Allegheny Cnty.

Full title: BARRY WINGARD v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 3, 2017

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1613 (W.D. Pa. May. 3, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1613

05-03-2017

BARRY WINGARD v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

KEARNEY, J.

ORDER-MEMORANDUM

AND NOW, this 3^rd day of May 2017, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion in limine under 28 U.S.C § 1658 (statute of limitations) (ECF Doc. No. 67), Defendant's nearly identical second motion in limine under 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (ECF Doc. No. 68), and Plaintiff's Response (ECF Doc. No. 73), it is ORDERED Defendant's Motions (ECF Doc. Nos. 67, 68) are DENIED.

Analysis

In its Answer, Allegheny County raised the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. On December 5, 2016, during our telephone conference with counsel, we discussed the County's affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations. In our December 5, 2016 Scheduling Order, we struck the County's statute of limitations defense without prejudice.¹ The County did not amend its Answer and did not seek summary judgment.

1 ECF Doc. No. 52.

The County now asks us to limit requested damages by statutory interpretation without a factual record through a motion in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is "narrow the evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions."² In Emcore, the court denied the party's motion in limine because it "does not involve evidentiary rulings, or any other type of issue usually considered on an in limine basis."³ Our Court of Appeals held we cannot decide to "bypass[] the process established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56" which requires notice to Mr. Wingard of the County's material facts and an opportunity to dispute them by resolving these issues as a motion in limine.⁴

2 Emcore Corp. v. Optium Corp., No. 07-326, 2009 WL 3381809 at *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2009) (quoting Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 1069 (3d Cir.1990) (internal citations omitted)).

3 Id. (citing Bradley, 913 F.2d at 1069).

4 Bradley, 913 F.2d at 1069.

The affirmative defense of statute of limitations should be raised "as early as reasonably possible."⁵ We note of the six cases the County relies on for support, three were decided at motion to dismiss and three at summary judgment. The County wants to exclude portions of Mr. Wingard's claim less than two months before trial and without a factual record. The County asks us to "preclude...any claims" barred by the statute of limitations and gives us "examples as found in [Mr. Wingard]'s Pretrial Memorandum."⁶ We cannot, without prejudice to Mr. Wingard, decide whether the statute of limitations bars some of Mr. Wingard's claims without knowing the undisputed (or disputed) facts supporting the claims.

5 Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding the statute of limitations defense "does not necessarily have to be raised in the answer" but it cannot be raised at any time).

6 ECF Doc. No. 68 at 2. --------

We deny the County's motion in limine to exclude evidence based on the affirmative defense of statute of limitations because it is not a narrow evidentiary issue but an issue which requires a fulsome factual and legal record which the County elected not to seek through a summary judgment motion. We cannot decide this Motion on this limited record but, if warranted, Defendant may seek dismissal based on the factual record following presentation of evidence under Rule 50.

/s/ _________

KEARNEY, J.