Preview
Filing# 172070489 E-Filed 04/28/2023 05:34:47 PM
INTHE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOY FURER, CASE NO.: CACE-21-016578
Plaintiff,
V.
GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC,
and RELAXPRO, LLC,
Defendants.
1
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JOY FURER by
(hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and through her
undersigned counsel, and respectfully move the Court for an order in Limine prohibiting
the Defendants, GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC, and RELAXPRO, LLC, or any of
their agents, servants, attorneys, employees or witnesses, from making any reference to
or inference regarding the following matters at the trial of this action:
1. No mention or argument should be made with reference to the legal conclusion
that any recovery herein is nontaxable. St. John's River Terminal Co. v. Vaden,
190 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Good Samaritan Hospital v. Saylor, 495 So.2d
782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Comfort Makers v. Kenton, 515 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 5th DCA
1987); and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Braz, 182 So.2d 491 (Fla.3rd DCA
1966), reversed on other grounds, 196 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1967).
2. Neither lay witnesses nor expert witnesses should be allowed to comment on or
render opinions regarding questions of law. This is a matter upon which the
Court should instruct the jury. Nor should a witness, including an expert, be
allowed to tell a jury which witnesses to believe or what result to reach. Florida
Rules of Evidence §90.701, §90.702, §90.703, and §90.704; Ecker v. National
Roofing Company ofMiami, Inc., 201 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967).
1
10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055
www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 04/28/2023 05:34:47 PM.****
3. Defendants should not be allowed to make reference to or comment upon or
inference regarding any alleged "insurance crisis" or similar type matters.
Defendants should not refer to "overcrowded courtrooms." Interjection of said
matters into the trial of this action would be an attempt to improperly appeal to
the prejudices or sympathies of the jury and would prejudice Plaintiffs right to a
fair trial. Davidoff v. Segret, 551 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Stokes v. Wet
n' Wild, Inc., 523 So.2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Russell v. Guider, 362 So.2d 55
(Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
4. The Court should prohibit the use of any records from experts, or the testimony
of such experts whose opinions and records have not been marked and disclosed
pretrial. Sayad v. Alley, 508 So.2d 485 (Fla.3rd DCA 1987); and Pipkin v. Hamer,
501 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
5. Defense counsel shall not be permitted to provide their own opinions as to the
credibility of a witness, personal knowledge of facts, nor et-llude to any matter that
is not in evidence. Silva v. Nightingale, 619 So.2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), (holding
such is fundamentally improper); Muhammad v. Toys "R" Us. Inc., 668 So. 2d 254
(Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.4(e). Florida Bar
Rule 4-3.4(3).
6. Defense counsel should not be allowed to argue or infer that Plaintiff is
attempting to obtain a "windfall" or is seeking the "New American Dream" or has
"lawsuit pain" or is "litigious"or make a similar type argument. Nor should
defense counsel be entitled to argue that Plaintiff always asks for more than
Plaintiff wants or expects. Fowler v. N. Golding Corp., 582 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1991); George u. Mann, 622 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993); Mein, Joest and
Hayes v. Weiss, 516 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1 DCA 1987); Nazareth v. Sapp, 459 So.2d
2
10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055
www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com
1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Laberg v. Vancleave, 534 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA
1988).
7. Defendants should not be allowed to argue or infer that an adverse verdict will
impact upon the Defendants' reputation. Klose u. Choy, 673 So.2d 81 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1996).
8. Defendants should not be allowed to argue that the verdict may financially impact
upon it. Padrino v. Resnick, 615 So.2d 698-699 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1992). Further,
Defendants should not be permitted to argue or allude to the fact that Defendants
will have to personally pay the judgment rendered in this case.
9. Defendants should not be allowed to call any expert witnesses who have not been
previously listed on their pretrial witness list and their opinions disclosed in
accordance with this Court's Pretrial Order. Such would be unfairly prejudicial
to Plaintiff, and such late disclosure could not be cured. At no time have any
reports or opinions been disclosed to Plaintiffs counsel pursuant to the Court's
pretrial Order. See: Suarez Burgos v. Morhaim, 745 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999); Florida Marine Enterprises v. Baileu, 632 So.2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994);
Grau v. Branham, 626 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Binger v. King Pest
Control, 401 So.2d 1310, 1314 (Fla. 1981); Pipkin v. Hamer, 501 So.2d 1365 (Fla.
4th DCA 1987); and Mattek v. White, 695 So.2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
10. It is improper to suggest an impropriety in a Plaintiff not calling certain witnesses,
and as such Defendants should not be allowed to make such an argument. See:
Muhammad v. Toys "R" Us. Inc., 668 So. 2d ,
258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Riggins v.
Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So. 2d 430, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fino v. Nodine,
646 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); and Standard Jury Instruction 1.3a .
3
10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055
www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com
11. It is improper to ask when Plaintiff first contacted an attorney, and thus
Defendants should not be allowed to make such an argument. See: Watson v.
Builder's Square, Inc., 563 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1990).
12. Defendants' experts, if permitted to testify, may not comment on Plaintiffs
experts. Network Publications, Inc. v. Bforkman, 756 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA
2000).
13.The Court should prohibit any argument to the effect that lawsuits or claims may
have any impact on insurance rates or premiums charged, either generally or as
particularly applied to each Defendant, as a result of this lawsuit or any other
lawsuit. Davidoff v. Segret, 551 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
14. It is anticipated that the Defendants will make references to authoritative
publications, including treatises, studies, or publications, in an attempt to
bolster the testimony of Defendant's expert witnesses, if they are permitted to
testify. Defendants are not permitted to utilize medical literature as substantive
evidence on direct examination of their expert witnesses as any reference to the
medical literature to bolster an expert's opinions is improper. Fla. Stat. § 90.706;
Medina v. Variety Children's Hospitat 438 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(use of
a medical treatise to bolster the testimony of a witness on direct examination was
grounds for a new trial). Florida Statute §90.706, provides that authoritative
publications can only be used during the cross-examination of an expert and
cannot be used to bolster the credibilityof an expert or to supplement an opinion
of the expert which has already been formed. Additionally, an attempt to bolster
an expert's opinions by testimony of the lack of articles on a particular subject is
equally inappropriate. See Phillip Morris, Inc., v. Janoft; 901 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2004). Accordingly, the Defendants should be precluded from referencing
4
10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055
www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com
any authoritative publications to bolster the testimony of any witness; to permit
the introduction of such vague and hearsay type evidence would be unfair
bolstering and would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff.
15. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any opinions offered by any Hollywood police officer as
to the reasonableness and adequacy of the security at the subject premises at
the time of the subject incident as none were listed as experts by Defendants and
such an opinion invades the province of the jury.
16. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any documents Defendants seek to introduce that have
not been provided and/or where only incomplete portions of documents have
been provided.
17. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to Plaintiff being on disability and/or not
working. It is completely irrelevant and, if deemed relevant, any probative value
is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Fla. Stat. 90.403.
18. Notwithstanding Plaintiff does not deny sustaining neck and lower back injuries
for which she received benefits and was temporarily unable to work prior to the
subject incident, Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to Plaintiff: being on
disability;receiving benefits; or receiving financial support or assistance by any
means including, but not limited to, United States government welfare programs
and/ or financial support from friends or family. It is completely irrelevant and,
if deemed relevant, any probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair
prejudice. Fla. Stat. 90.403.
19. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to Plaintiff applying for, accepting, and/or
benefiting from any United States government welfare program. It is completely
irrelevant and, if deemed relevant, any probative value is substantially
outweighed by unfair prejudice. Fla. Stat. 90.403.
5
10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055
www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via
the Florida Courts E-filing E-portal on to: Amanda N. Rumker, Esq., John J. Glenn,
Esq., ANDERSONGLENN LLP, 2650 North Military Trail, Suite 430, Boca Raton, Florida
33341 at arumker@asglaw.com; and jglenn@asglaw.com, (Counsel for GG RE Holly-wood
Beach 613 LLC) and Alicia M. Corbo, Esq., Eric C. Sage, Esq., Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky
& Toland, P.A., 1200 Weston Road, Penthouse, Weston, Florida 33326 at
acorbo@mitrani.com; and esage@mitrani.com, (Counsel for Relaxpro, LLC) on this 28th
day of April, 2023.
DANIEL W. COURTNEY, P.A
10800 Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 700
Miami, Florida 33161
Telephone: (305) 579-0008
Facsimile: (305) 563-7055
By: s/ Daniel W. Courtney
Daniel W. Courtney
Florida Bar No: 0499781
dc@danielcourtneylaw.com
6
10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055
www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com
Preview
Filing# 172070489 E-Filed 04/28/2023 05:34:47 PM INTHE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA JOY FURER, CASE NO.: CACE-21-016578 Plaintiff, V. GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC, and RELAXPRO, LLC, Defendants. 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JOY FURER by (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and through her undersigned counsel, and respectfully move the Court for an order in Limine prohibiting the Defendants, GG RE HOLLYWOOD BEACH 613 LLC, and RELAXPRO, LLC, or any of their agents, servants, attorneys, employees or witnesses, from making any reference to or inference regarding the following matters at the trial of this action: 1. No mention or argument should be made with reference to the legal conclusion that any recovery herein is nontaxable. St. John's River Terminal Co. v. Vaden, 190 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Good Samaritan Hospital v. Saylor, 495 So.2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Comfort Makers v. Kenton, 515 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Braz, 182 So.2d 491 (Fla.3rd DCA 1966), reversed on other grounds, 196 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1967). 2. Neither lay witnesses nor expert witnesses should be allowed to comment on or render opinions regarding questions of law. This is a matter upon which the Court should instruct the jury. Nor should a witness, including an expert, be allowed to tell a jury which witnesses to believe or what result to reach. Florida Rules of Evidence §90.701, §90.702, §90.703, and §90.704; Ecker v. National Roofing Company ofMiami, Inc., 201 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967). 1 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055 www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 04/28/2023 05:34:47 PM.**** 3. Defendants should not be allowed to make reference to or comment upon or inference regarding any alleged "insurance crisis" or similar type matters. Defendants should not refer to "overcrowded courtrooms." Interjection of said matters into the trial of this action would be an attempt to improperly appeal to the prejudices or sympathies of the jury and would prejudice Plaintiffs right to a fair trial. Davidoff v. Segret, 551 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Stokes v. Wet n' Wild, Inc., 523 So.2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Russell v. Guider, 362 So.2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). 4. The Court should prohibit the use of any records from experts, or the testimony of such experts whose opinions and records have not been marked and disclosed pretrial. Sayad v. Alley, 508 So.2d 485 (Fla.3rd DCA 1987); and Pipkin v. Hamer, 501 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). 5. Defense counsel shall not be permitted to provide their own opinions as to the credibility of a witness, personal knowledge of facts, nor et-llude to any matter that is not in evidence. Silva v. Nightingale, 619 So.2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), (holding such is fundamentally improper); Muhammad v. Toys "R" Us. Inc., 668 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.4(e). Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(3). 6. Defense counsel should not be allowed to argue or infer that Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a "windfall" or is seeking the "New American Dream" or has "lawsuit pain" or is "litigious"or make a similar type argument. Nor should defense counsel be entitled to argue that Plaintiff always asks for more than Plaintiff wants or expects. Fowler v. N. Golding Corp., 582 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); George u. Mann, 622 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993); Mein, Joest and Hayes v. Weiss, 516 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1 DCA 1987); Nazareth v. Sapp, 459 So.2d 2 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055 www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Laberg v. Vancleave, 534 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). 7. Defendants should not be allowed to argue or infer that an adverse verdict will impact upon the Defendants' reputation. Klose u. Choy, 673 So.2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 8. Defendants should not be allowed to argue that the verdict may financially impact upon it. Padrino v. Resnick, 615 So.2d 698-699 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1992). Further, Defendants should not be permitted to argue or allude to the fact that Defendants will have to personally pay the judgment rendered in this case. 9. Defendants should not be allowed to call any expert witnesses who have not been previously listed on their pretrial witness list and their opinions disclosed in accordance with this Court's Pretrial Order. Such would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, and such late disclosure could not be cured. At no time have any reports or opinions been disclosed to Plaintiffs counsel pursuant to the Court's pretrial Order. See: Suarez Burgos v. Morhaim, 745 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Florida Marine Enterprises v. Baileu, 632 So.2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Grau v. Branham, 626 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310, 1314 (Fla. 1981); Pipkin v. Hamer, 501 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); and Mattek v. White, 695 So.2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). 10. It is improper to suggest an impropriety in a Plaintiff not calling certain witnesses, and as such Defendants should not be allowed to make such an argument. See: Muhammad v. Toys "R" Us. Inc., 668 So. 2d , 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So. 2d 430, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fino v. Nodine, 646 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); and Standard Jury Instruction 1.3a . 3 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055 www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com 11. It is improper to ask when Plaintiff first contacted an attorney, and thus Defendants should not be allowed to make such an argument. See: Watson v. Builder's Square, Inc., 563 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1990). 12. Defendants' experts, if permitted to testify, may not comment on Plaintiffs experts. Network Publications, Inc. v. Bforkman, 756 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). 13.The Court should prohibit any argument to the effect that lawsuits or claims may have any impact on insurance rates or premiums charged, either generally or as particularly applied to each Defendant, as a result of this lawsuit or any other lawsuit. Davidoff v. Segret, 551 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). 14. It is anticipated that the Defendants will make references to authoritative publications, including treatises, studies, or publications, in an attempt to bolster the testimony of Defendant's expert witnesses, if they are permitted to testify. Defendants are not permitted to utilize medical literature as substantive evidence on direct examination of their expert witnesses as any reference to the medical literature to bolster an expert's opinions is improper. Fla. Stat. § 90.706; Medina v. Variety Children's Hospitat 438 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(use of a medical treatise to bolster the testimony of a witness on direct examination was grounds for a new trial). Florida Statute §90.706, provides that authoritative publications can only be used during the cross-examination of an expert and cannot be used to bolster the credibilityof an expert or to supplement an opinion of the expert which has already been formed. Additionally, an attempt to bolster an expert's opinions by testimony of the lack of articles on a particular subject is equally inappropriate. See Phillip Morris, Inc., v. Janoft; 901 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Accordingly, the Defendants should be precluded from referencing 4 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055 www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com any authoritative publications to bolster the testimony of any witness; to permit the introduction of such vague and hearsay type evidence would be unfair bolstering and would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff. 15. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any opinions offered by any Hollywood police officer as to the reasonableness and adequacy of the security at the subject premises at the time of the subject incident as none were listed as experts by Defendants and such an opinion invades the province of the jury. 16. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any documents Defendants seek to introduce that have not been provided and/or where only incomplete portions of documents have been provided. 17. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to Plaintiff being on disability and/or not working. It is completely irrelevant and, if deemed relevant, any probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Fla. Stat. 90.403. 18. Notwithstanding Plaintiff does not deny sustaining neck and lower back injuries for which she received benefits and was temporarily unable to work prior to the subject incident, Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to Plaintiff: being on disability;receiving benefits; or receiving financial support or assistance by any means including, but not limited to, United States government welfare programs and/ or financial support from friends or family. It is completely irrelevant and, if deemed relevant, any probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Fla. Stat. 90.403. 19. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to Plaintiff applying for, accepting, and/or benefiting from any United States government welfare program. It is completely irrelevant and, if deemed relevant, any probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Fla. Stat. 90.403. 5 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055 www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the Florida Courts E-filing E-portal on to: Amanda N. Rumker, Esq., John J. Glenn, Esq., ANDERSONGLENN LLP, 2650 North Military Trail, Suite 430, Boca Raton, Florida 33341 at arumker@asglaw.com; and jglenn@asglaw.com, (Counsel for GG RE Holly-wood Beach 613 LLC) and Alicia M. Corbo, Esq., Eric C. Sage, Esq., Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A., 1200 Weston Road, Penthouse, Weston, Florida 33326 at acorbo@mitrani.com; and esage@mitrani.com, (Counsel for Relaxpro, LLC) on this 28th day of April, 2023. DANIEL W. COURTNEY, P.A 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, Florida 33161 Telephone: (305) 579-0008 Facsimile: (305) 563-7055 By: s/ Daniel W. Courtney Daniel W. Courtney Florida Bar No: 0499781 dc@danielcourtneylaw.com 6 10800 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 700 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305)579-0008 Fax: (305)563-7055 www. danielcourtneylaw. com dc@danielcourtneylaw. com