Leon v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. CIV 13–1005 JB/SCY,CIV 13–1005 JB/SCY
• Parties: Elia Leon, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Martin Leon, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

163 F.Supp.3d 1050

Elia Leon, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Martin Leon, deceased, Plaintiff,

v.Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant.

No. CIV 13–1005 JB/SCY

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Signed February 5, 2016

Mark J. Caruso, Caruso Law Offices, PC, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Paul D. Barber, Barber & Borg LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Brenda M. Saiz, Michael E. Kaemper, Abigail M. Yates, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, PA, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James O. Browning

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion In Limine, filed November 16, 2015 (Doc. 76)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on December 22, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should exclude third-party Larry Payne's out-of-court statements regarding his driving immediately before the crash under rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

; (ii) whether the Court should exclude evidence of Plaintiff Elia Leon's settlement with Payne and Puckett Transportation, Inc. (“Puckett”); (iii) whether the Court should exclude E. Leon's allegations in Leon v. Payne, et al., No. CIV–12–0814 JB/LAM (D.N.M.)(the “Puckett Action”); and (iv) whether the Court should take judicial notice of Leon's allegations in the Puckett Action.¹ The Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion. First, the Court will admit Payne's out-of-court statements for the limited purpose of showing their inconsistency. Second, the Court will exclude evidence of E. Leon's settlement with Payne and Puckett, because it would be unduly prejudicial, and the Court has other tools available to explain, at least partially, the missing parties to the jury. Third, the Court will admit E. Leon's allegations in the Puckett Action, because they show that E. Leon has, in the past, asserted that Payne and Puckett were also negligent, and the pleading is thus relevant evidence of comparative fault. Finally, the Court will take judicial notice of the allegations in the Puckett Action, but will not take judicial notice of their accuracy.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the Plaintiff's Complaint to Recover Damages for Personal Injury & Wrongful Death (Jury Trial Demanded), filed October 17, 2013 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”), the Motion, and the Response.² On November 30, 2011, at roughly 11:00 p.m., Federico Martinez–Leandro was driving a tractor-trailer “eastbound on Interstate 40 in Cibola County, New Mexico approximately .2 miles west of mile marker 89.” Complaint ¶ 12, at 3. Martin Leon, an authorized passenger, was present in the tractor's cab. See Complaint ¶ 13, at 3. Martinez–Leandro crashed the tractor-trailer into the rear of a second tractor-trailer while in the right lane. See Complaint ¶ 15, at 3. M. Leon suffered serious injuries and death because of the accident. See Complaint ¶ 16, at 3.

Martinez–Leandro was Eusebia Transportation, Inc.'s employee or agent. See Complaint ¶ 8, at 2. Eusebia Transportation had leased the tractor and Martinez–Leandro's services to FedEx Ground, which provided the trailers and displayed its Department of Transportation number on the tractor. See Complaint ¶ 7–8, at 2.

Payne, one of Puckett's drivers, was driving the other tractor-trailer involved in the collision. See Complaint ¶ 15, at 3. Payne reported to police officers responding to the crash that he was sleeping in his truck on the highway's right shoulder when FedEx Ground's truck struck him from behind. See Response at 2. Investigating officers later confronted Payne with physical evidence showing that the collision occurred in the right lane rather than the shoulder. See Response at 2. Payne then changed his account, providing a written statement that he was traveling at fifty-five miles per hour in the right lane immediately before the collision. See Response at 2. E. Leon, FedEx Ground, and the New Mexico State Police subsequently reconstructed the accident, and all agree that Payne's truck was traveling in the outer lane of travel at less than the speed limit. See Motion at 5; Response at 2 (stating that Payne was traveling “well below the speed limit, at approximately 34 to 38 mph”).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff E. Leon brought suit as decedent M. Leon's widow and personal representative in state court on May 16, 2012. See Puckett Action, Complaint to Recover Damages for Wrongful Death, Punitive Damages and Other Damages, filed in state court May 16, 2012, filed in federal court July 25, 2012 (Doc. 1–1 in the Puckett Action)(“Puckett Complaint”). E. Leon's Puckett Complaint names Payne, Puckett, Martinez–Leandro, FedEx Ground, and Eusebia Transportation, Inc. as defendants. See Puckett Complaint ¶¶ 4–13, at 1–3. The Puckett Complaint alleges that “Defendant Larry Payne operated his vehicle in a careless, negligent and/or reckless manner and without regard to the safety of others traveling on the highway of the State of New Mexico, including but not limited to Martin Leon.” Puckett Complaint ¶ 18, at 3–4. It adds that “Defendant Federico Martinez–Leandro is further comparatively negligent for the operation of his vehicle.” Puckett Complaint ¶ 19, at 12.

FedEx Ground removed the case to federal court on July 25, 2012. See FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Notice of Removal at 1, filed July 25, 2012 (Doc. 1 in the Puckett Action). On January 25, 2013, E. Leon voluntarily dismissed FedEx Ground, Martinez–Leandro, and Eusebia Transportation, Inc. from the case without prejudice. See Puckett Action, Plaintiff's Notice of Partial Dismissal of Complaint Without Prejudice, filed January 25, 2013 (Doc. 24 in Puckett Action). E. Leon states that she did so “under the mistaken belief that they were protected by workers' comp.” Transcript of Hearing at 123:21–23 (Barber), taken December 22, 2015 (Doc. 128)(“Tr.”). E. Leon later learned during discovery in the Puckett Action that Martinez–Leandro “broke all the rules of trucking,” thereby removing worker's compensation as a bar to suit. Tr. at 123:23–124:6 (Barber).

E. Leon filed a second action in federal court against FedEx Ground on October 17, 2013. See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 4, at 1. E. Leon alleges two causes of action in her Complaint: (i) a negligence and negligence per se claim based on FedEx Ground's failure to maintain and operate the vehicle in a safe manner, see Complaint ¶¶ 17–25, at 4–5; and (ii) a negligence and negligence per se claim based on FedEx Ground's failure to maintain and operate the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety rules and administrative standards, see Complaint ¶¶ 26–39, at 5–7. E. Leon seeks actual and compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages. See Complaint ¶¶ 4143, at 7–9.

1. The Motion.

E. Leon filed her only motion in limine on November 16, 2015. See Motion at 1. The Motion requests that the Court: (i) exclude Payne's out-of-court statements, particularly those to investigators; (ii) exclude evidence of Payne and Puckett's settlement agreement; and (iii) exclude evidence of E. Leon's allegations in the Puckett Complaint.³ See Motion at 3–7. On the first point, E. Leon argues that introduction of Payne's statements “is of no probative value and can only confuse the jury or prejudice the jury against Larry Payne.” Motion at 5. Because Payne is not a party, E. Leon explains, his veracity is not at issue and his statements are irrelevant. See Motion at 5–6. Second, E. Leon argues that the Court should exclude evidence of the settlement agreement, because: (i) it has no probative value; (ii) it could prejudice the jury; (iii) it could cause the jury to increase nonparties' share of any comparative fault; (iv) the settlement agreement contains a provision stating that it is not evidence; and (v) courts generally exclude evidence of settlements. See Motion at 6. E. Leon contends that the Court can account for Payne and Puckett's absence with an appropriate jury instruction. See Motion at 6. Third, E. Leon argues that the Puckett Complaint's allegations against Payne and Puckett are irrelevant. See Motion at 7. She notes that the Puckett Complaint “was drafted and signed by one of plaintiff's attorneys, Mark Caruso” and represents “Mr. Caruso's statements of facts that he believes to be true—essentially, his opinion. They are not statements of the plaintiff.” Motion at 7.

2. The Response.

FedEx Ground responded on December 3, 2015. See Response at 1. FedEx Ground begins by attempting to show that Payne's out-of-court statements are not hearsay or at least fall within a hearsay exception. See Response at 1–8. It contends that it will introduce Payne's statements to show their inconsistency rather than to prove their truth. See Motion at 1–2. It further explains that the statements are relevant, because “they specifically relate to [FedEx Ground's] affirmative defense of comparative fault.” Motion at 1–2. It adds that Payne's statements should be admissible because his severe illness has made him unable to testify. See Motion at 3. It then argues that Payne's statements fall within several hearsay exceptions, as: (i) a present sense impression, under rule 803(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence

; (ii) a recorded recollection, under rule 803(5) ; (iii) an excited utterance, under rule 803(2) ; and (iv) a statement that falls within the residual exception, under rule 807. See Response at 3–8.

FedEx Ground also argues that the settlement agreement is relevant, because the jury will hear testimony about both drivers and the agreement will “explain Puckett's absence to the jury.” Response at 8. It asserts that “evidence of the fact of settlement between Plaintiff and Puckett is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408

because [FedEx Ground] does not seek to introduce the evidence to show damages or the validity of Plaintiff's claim.” Response at 8 (emphasis in original). It states that the fact of settlement “will...