Jenkins v. Xpresspa Group, Inc.

S.D. New York

Jenkins v. Xpresspa Group, Inc.

DecidedApril 1, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-01774

StatusUnknown

This text of Jenkins v. Xpresspa Group, Inc. (Jenkins v. Xpresspa Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenkins v. Xpresspa Group, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/1/202 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- X RODGER JENKINS and GREGORY JONES : : Plaintiffs, : : -against- : 19-CV-1774 (VEC) : : ORDER XPRESSPA GROUP, INC., : : Defendant. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS the parties are tentatively scheduled to appear before the Court for a bench trial in May 2021; WHEREAS as of March 17, 2021, the parties’ motions in limine are fully briefed; and WHEREAS on March 22, 2021, the parties jointly notified the Court that its decision on one of Defendant’s motions in limine may help facilitate a settlement in advance of trial, Dkt. 142 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that oral argument on the parties’ motions in limine is scheduled for April 9, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. Oral argument will be conducted via Zoom video conference. Chambers will email the parties with further information on how to access the video conference and will post a subsequent order providing a public dial-in. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must be prepared to discuss why their arguments, including those invoking judicial estoppel, are appropriate for disposition on a motion in limine. See, e.g., Audio Technica U.S., Inc. v. United States, 963 F.3d 569, 575 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[I]t was improper for the district court to consider judicial estoppel within the context of a motion in limine. Rather than addressing the admissibility of certain pieces or types of evidence, [plaintiffs] motion asked the court to bar the jury from hearing one side’s argument, essentially granting them judgment as a matter of law on that point. Such non- evidentiary legal issues must be decided in the context of a motion for summary judgment . . .

SO ORDERED. . ~

Date: April 1, 2021 VALERIE CAPRON New York, New York United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/1/202 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- X RODGER JENKINS and GREGORY JONES : : Plaintiffs, : : -against- : 19-CV-1774 (VEC) : : ORDER XPRESSPA GROUP, INC., : : Defendant. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS the parties are tentatively scheduled to appear before the Court for a bench trial in May 2021; WHEREAS as of March 17, 2021, the parties’ motions in limine are fully briefed; and WHEREAS on March 22, 2021, the parties jointly notified the Court that its decision on one of Defendant’s motions in limine may help facilitate a settlement in advance of trial, Dkt. 142 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that oral argument on the parties’ motions in limine is scheduled for April 9, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. Oral argument will be conducted via Zoom video conference. Chambers will email the parties with further information on how to access the video conference and will post a subsequent order providing a public dial-in. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must be prepared to discuss why their arguments, including those invoking judicial estoppel, are appropriate for disposition on a motion in limine. See, e.g., Audio Technica U.S., Inc. v. United States, 963 F.3d 569, 575 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[I]t was improper for the district court to consider judicial estoppel within the context of a motion in limine. Rather than addressing the admissibility of certain pieces or types of evidence, [plaintiffs] motion asked the court to bar the jury from hearing one side’s argument, essentially granting them judgment as a matter of law on that point. Such non- evidentiary legal issues must be decided in the context of a motion for summary judgment . . .

SO ORDERED. . ~

Date: April 1, 2021 VALERIE CAPRON New York, New York United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jenkins v. Xpresspa Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-xpresspa-group-inc-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack