Hicks v. Starbucks Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-04709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hicks v. Starbucks, Judge Schofield denied Hicks’s first trial-evidence request and denied as moot her second.
Joanne Hicks and Starbucks Corporation, concerning the arguments and evidence permitted at the anticipated trial.
What happened
Hicks v. Starbucks Corporation concerned Joanne Hicks’s pretrial request to limit what Starbucks could argue about her alleged injuries and damages at trial.
The court denied Hicks’s request to bar Starbucks from arguing that preexisting injuries or conditions caused the alleged damages. It denied as moot her request to bar an argument that she should not be compensated for “eggshell plaintiff” injuries because Starbucks said it did not intend to make that argument. The court explained that Starbucks could question Hicks’s expert about causation and make arguments supported by the trial evidence.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The order did not decide the underlying damages issue; it resolved the limits on the parties’ anticipated trial arguments.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. Starbucks Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-04709
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
On August 3, 2022, Joanne Hicks filed a motion in limine, meaning a pretrial request asking the court to restrict evidence or arguments at trial. She asked the court to prevent Starbucks Corporation from making two arguments about her alleged damages.
First requested restriction
Hicks asked the court to preclude, or bar, Starbucks from arguing that preexisting injuries or conditions caused the alleged damages. The court denied that request. It stated that Hicks could not introduce evidence of causation and then prevent Starbucks from arguing that she did not sustain a causally related injury. The court held that Starbucks could cross-examine Hicks’s expert witness about causation and could make other arguments fairly supported by cross-examination, fact witnesses, or documents admitted at trial.
Second requested restriction
Hicks also asked the court to preclude Starbucks from arguing that she should not be compensated for “eggshell plaintiff” injuries. The court denied that request as moot because Starbucks represented that it did not intend to make that argument. The court clarified, however, that Starbucks could argue that a defendant is liable only for additional harm or aggravation caused by the defendant’s negligence, and is not liable for a preexisting condition or symptoms that occurred before any aggravation.
Disposition
The court denied Hicks’s motion to preclude arguments that preexisting injuries or conditions caused the alleged damages. It denied as moot Hicks’s motion to preclude arguments about compensation for “eggshell plaintiff” injuries. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 31.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.