360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-00767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In 360 N. Rodeo Drive v. Wells Fargo, Judge Subramanian granted both motions in limine, denied the Daubert motion without prejudice, and ordered briefing.
The parties, their proposed witnesses, and the presentation of evidence at the bench trial were affected. Defendants must brief the availability of consequential damages, and plaintiff may respond; the parties must also address exhibit objections and possible pre-admission of exhibits.
What happened
In 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, the court ruled on evidence-related motions during a July 10, 2024 conference. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute in detail.
The court granted both defendants’ motions in limine. It ruled that a witness’s opinion about the property’s value could not be admitted because the witness was not disclosed or qualified as an expert, although the testimony could be admitted for another purpose. The court denied defendants’ Daubert motion without prejudice and required briefing on whether consequential damages are available.
Judge Arun Subramanian also directed the parties to meet about exhibit objections and ordered the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 78 and 103.
The detailed version
- 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association · No. 1:22-cv-00767
- Subramanian
- July 10, 2024
Background
This order records rulings discussed at a July 10 conference in a case involving 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, among others. The opinion provides no detailed description of the underlying claims or dispute.
Rulings on Evidence
The court granted both of defendants’ motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be introduced.
As to the first motion, the court ruled that a witness was neither disclosed nor qualified as an expert. The witness’s opinion testimony therefore was not admissible as to the value of the property. The court stated that the testimony could still be admitted for another purpose.
The second motion in limine was unopposed, and the court granted it.
The court denied defendants’ Daubert motion without prejudice. A Daubert motion challenges whether expert testimony is admissible. The court stated that only reliability was at issue and that, because the case would be tried to the judge rather than a jury, it could evaluate reliability after hearing the evidence.
Briefing and Exhibits
The court ordered defendants to submit, by July 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., a brief of no more than fifteen double-spaced pages addressing whether consequential damages are available in the case. Plaintiff was ordered to submit a responsive brief, also limited to fifteen double-spaced pages, by July 17, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
The parties were directed to meet and confer about exhibit objections and to agree to pre-admit certain exhibits. If major issues remained unresolved, they were ordered to submit a joint letter describing those issues by July 19, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entries 78 and 103. Judge Arun Subramanian’s order addressed pretrial evidence, briefing, and exhibit-management matters; it did not decide the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.