UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 23, 2009
HANGER PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
CAPSTONE ORTHOPEDIC, INC.; SANTIAGO ROSALES; GLEN S. ELLIS; DAVID KIMZEY; ANGELA FULTON, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER RE DENIAL OF MOTION IN LIMINE
FILED JANUARY 13, 2009
Defendants Capstone, Ellis and Rosales ("Defendants") filed a supplemental motion in limine on January 13, 2009. Defendants argue in the motion that "[t]his Court should find that Hanger cannot sustain any cause of action based on the allegedly unlawful solicitation or hiring of Hanger's employees. . ." The scope of this motion is unclear. Further, it is unclear why Defendants reference Hanger's Complaint in their motion since "[a] [final pretrial] order [ ] supersedes the [Complaint] under [Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and controls the subsequent course of the action." Donovan v. Crisostomo, 689 F.2d 869, 875 (9th Cir. 1982)(internal citation omitted).
Since Defendants have not shown that any claim referenced in their motion has been preserved for trial in the final pretrial order, the motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.