Onyx Films LLC v. Koch
Decision Date | 04 March 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-1591 |
Citation | 523 F.Supp.3d 799 |
Parties | ONYX FILMS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Susan KOCH, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Mary Lynn Tate, Tate Law PC, Abingdon, VA, for Plaintiffs.
Max Francis Maccoby, Washington Global Law Group, PLLC, Washington, DC, Thomas Thor Cummins, Potomac Litigation PLLC, Fairfax, VA, Jeffrey Arnold Breit, Kevin Biniazan, Breit Cantor Grana Buckner, PLLC, Virginia Beach, VA, for Defendant.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ "Motion to Strike Defendant's Summary Judgment Brief Exhibit 5" pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a). See Dkt. 89. After due consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.
The exhibit in question is an email from Plaintiff Marquez to Defendant Koch, and reads as follows:
Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a) provides:
Defendant argues that the disputed email does not fall within the ambit of Rule 408(a) because the email "did not seek to resolve any disputed claim ." See Dkt. 90, at 2 (emphasis in original). Defendant avers that Plaintiffs never filed any claims for unpaid fees and that Plaintiffs voluntarily relinquished entitlement to those fees regardless, so "[t]here is absolutely no disputed claim between the parties on these points." See id.
The Court disagrees with Defendant that Plaintiff Marquez's email was not seeking to "resolve any disputed claim." Dkt. 90, at 2 (emphasis added). The email makes clear that, at the time of its sending, Marquez believed that she was entitled to unpaid fees, and was willing to forgo those fees for "valuable consideration" (i.e., additional film credits). See id. at 1. In other words, Marquez was offering a compromise to Defendant Koch to avoid resort to judicial intervention in a dispute over an amount purportedly owed to her. See Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(1) ; Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. v. Dupuy , 856 F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1988). Marquez's suggestion that the Parties’ lawyers draft a resolution, assuming her proposed solution was amenable to Koch, is a clear signal that Rule 408(a) applies.
Insofar as Defendant argues that Rule 408(a) should not apply because the disputed claim referenced in Marquez's email was not asserted in Plaintiffs’ operative complaint, Defendant is incorrect as a matter of law. Rule 408 encourages "honest attempts to settle controverted claims without resorting to expensive and time consuming litigation." Bradbury v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 815 F.2d 1356, 1363 (10th Cir. 1987) ; see also Dupuy , 856 F.2d at 654. To accomplish this aim, courts exclude from evidence settlement negotiations over disputed claims, even if those claims are not thereafter asserted in litigation. See Dupuy , 856 F.2d at 654 (citing Branch v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York , 783 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir. 1986) ) ("[T]he spectre of a subsequent use to prejudice a separate and discrete claim is a disincentive which Rule 408 seeks to prevent. ") (emphasis added); see also Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp. , 608 F.3d 284, 298 (5th Cir. 2010) ( ); Affiliated Mfrs., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am. , 56 F.3d 521, 527 (3d Cir. 1995) (); Atmosphere Hospitality Mgmt. v. Shiba Investments , 158 F. Supp. 3d 837, 844 (D.S.D. 2016) (citing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial