Gustafson v. Full Service Maintenance Corporation
| Melissa J Gustafson |
| Full Service Maintenance Corporation |
| Full Service Maintenance Corporation |
| Melissa J Gustafson |
| 4:2011cv00443 |
| March 10, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| Audrey G. Fleissig |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2 |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
95
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. No. 80) to exclude evidence or argument concerning Plaintiff's job performance is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in light of th e parties' stipulation that evidence or argument with respect to Plaintiff's prior criminal conviction will not be offered, that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 (Doc. No. 82) to exclude evidence or argument relating to Plaintiff's claim for unemployment benefits is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Although Defendant shall be generally precluded from offering such evidence or argument, Defendant may seek leave of Court to offer evidence or argument relating to the hours worked or duties performed by Plaintiff during her final days of work for Defendant, to the extent relevant to Count II of Plaintiff& #039;s complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 (Doc. No. 83) to exclude evidence or argument that Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining records of her working hours is GRANTED in part and DENIE D in part. Such evidence and argument shall be generally excluded, but the Court reserves its ruling with respect to evidence or argument offered by Defendant to describe Plaintiff's job functions as part of Defendant's proof of its affi rmative defense that Plaintiff was an exempt employee, and if appropriate on cross-examination. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 (Doc. No. 84) to exclude evidence or argument with respect to personal telephon e calls made by Plaintiff during working hours is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 (Doc. No. 85) to exclude evidence or argument that Plaintiff agreed to be compensated as a salaried employee and waived overtime pay is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Such evidence and argument shall be generally excluded, but the Court reserves its ruling with respect to the admissibility of Defendant's Exhibits B and C. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion in limine regarding alleged overtime prior to March 10, 2009 (Doc. No. 89) is GRANTED. This ruling does not preclude Plaintiff from making an offer of proof, out of the hearing of the jury, with respect to alleged overt ime prior to March 10, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion in limine regarding evidence of willfulness (Doc. No. 90) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may not offer evidence that Defendant knew it had violated or acted in r eckless disregard of its obligations under Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC §216, et.seq, but his ruling does not preclude Plaintiff from making an offer of proof, out of the hearing of the jury. Further, such evidence may be admitted to the ex tent relevant to rebut a good faith defense. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion in limine regarding evidence of attorney's fees (Doc. No. 91) is GRANTED, in light of the parties' agreement to address the question of attorney's fees after the jury reaches its verdict.. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/21/2012. (MRC)
|
|
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 62) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/11/2012. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Counts III and V of Defendant's counterclaim is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 7.) Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 3/2/2012. (NCL)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
