Listen to this article
Where a plaintiff has moved to exclude any evidence and/or testimony about his allegedly “dangerous” and “erratic” behavior, the motion should be allowed because the defendant has not identified any dangerous or erratic behavior specifically relevant to the plaintiff’s claims of conversion and defendant’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty.
“This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant John H. Douglas Sr.’s (JDS) Motion in Limine.
“First, JDS asks this Court to exclude any evidence and/or testimony about JDS’ allegedly ‘dangerous’ and ‘erratic’ behavior as irrelevant to the remaining counts: JDS’ claim of conversion and JDJ’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff John H. Douglas Jr. (JDJ) argues this evidence is relevant to ‘whether JDJ had the requisite specific intent to ‘convert’ JDS’s property, or he was just attempting to protect the Company,’ based on JDJ’s alleged belief that JDS was not a member of Douglas Supply, LLC, and whether JDS breached his fiduciary duties to the Company.
“Civil conversion is ‘an intentional tort in the sense that the converter’s actions are willful,’ however, conversion ‘can be committed unwittingly if [the defendant is] unaware of the plaintiff’s outstanding property interest.’ … As such, JDS’ behavior, whether dangerous or erratic or otherwise, is irrelevant.
“Second, the breach of fiduciary duty claim concerns JDS’ actions regarding a Lowe’s account and line of credit. While any of JDS’ actions taken with regard to the account and line of credit may be relevant, JDJ has not identified any dangerous or erratic behavior specifically relevant to this claim.
“Finally, JDJ’s alleged belief or understanding that JDS was not a member of Douglas Supply has already been ruled on by this Court. JDJ’s belief or understanding is wholly irrelevant under the law of this case, which is that JDS was a member of Douglas Supply during the period of time at issue. The only question for the jury as to JDS’ claim of conversion is whether JDJ willfully committed any distinct act to convert JDS’ personal property to his own use. … The question for the jury as to JDJ’s claim of breach of fiduciary duties is whether JDS had a fiduciary duty to the Company, whether JDS breached that duty, and whether damages resulted from the breach of that duty.
“The Court finds any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding JDS’ character or behavior as dangerous, erratic, or similar will be excluded at trial as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and improper character evidence under MRE 404. Further, the Court finds any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding JDS’ membership status in the Company or JDJ’s alleged beliefs regarding JDS’ membership status in the Company will also be excluded as irrelevant and contrary to the law of the case.”
Douglas v. Douglas; MiLW No. 10-109845, 4 pages; Ingham Circuit Court; Jamo, J.
