ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on motions in limine filed by both parties. (Doc. ## 42, 43, 44, 46, 47.) Three of these motions are unopposed and are granted for the reasons articulated in the motions. (Doc. ## 43, 44, 46.) Plaintiff has represented that his Motion to Consolidate (Doc. # 42) has been "mooted" by subsequent events in a related case. (Doc. # 53.)

This leaves Defendant's motion to Exclude Reference to Damages Being Minimal. (Doc. # 47.) The Motion to Exclude represents that Plaintiff opposes the motion but no response has been filed as of this date. In any case, as the motion states: "Defendant anticipates that Plaintiff may argue to the jury that the amount of damages claimed in this case is minimal as compared with the alleged size and wealth of Defendant." (Doc. # 47 at 1.) Further, Defendant makes reference to an earlier case in which counsel for plaintiff stated that the amount of damages asked for by another FDCPA plaintiff was the equivalent of a "parking ticket," given the apparent size and profitability of another defendant's business. (Id.) Plaintiff invokes Rule 403 and argues that such an argument would be unduly prejudicial. The Court concurs in this (unrebutted) reasoning and instructs counsel for Plaintiff that it is prohibited from making a similar argument at trial in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the pending motions in limine (Doc. ## 43, 44, 46, 47) are GRANTED. The Motion to Consolidate (Doc. # 42) is DENIED as moot.