WALKER v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., 8:14-cv-588-T-30MAP. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150326b75
Filed: Mar. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 37) and Defendant's Response (Dkt. 46). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be granted. Plaintiff Nevada Walker filed the instant action against Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. ("TSI") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. 227 et seq. Plaintiff's mot
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 37) and Defendant's Response (Dkt. 46). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be granted. Plaintiff Nevada Walker filed the instant action against Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. ("TSI") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. 227 et seq. Plaintiff's moti..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 37) and Defendant's Response (Dkt. 46). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be granted.
Plaintiff Nevada Walker filed the instant action against Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. ("TSI") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Plaintiff's motion requests the Court to exclude opinion testimony from any individual on behalf of Defendant because Defendant did not disclose an expert in this case. Defendant's response indicates that it does not intend to call an expert at trial. Thus, Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's motion. Defendant points out that Plaintiff also has not disclosed any experts in this case. Thus, both parties should be precluded from offering expert testimony at trial. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 37) is granted to the extent stated herein.
2. Both parties are precluded from offering expert testimony at trial.
DONE and ORDERED
Source: Leagle
