Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Werling v. Eggeton

May 9, 2006

DEVEN WERLING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARK EGGLETON, THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, OHDS, INC., T/D/B/A/ THE ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, AND BRIAN ROBERTS. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge

Order of Court

Electronically Filed

AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2006, after careful consideration of the parties Motions in Limine, and the Responses thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant, OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to preclude Dr. McCauley's testimony relating to the Original (doc. no. 92) is DENIED.

(2) Defendant OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to preclude evidence of medical bills in excess of that accepted as payment in full (doc. no. 93) is DENIED AS MOOT, because plaintiff agrees that he is entitled to offer into evidence the actual amounts paid for medical expenses where such payment was accepted as payment in full.

(3) Defendant OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to preclude inadmissible character evidence (doc. no. 94) is GRANTED.

(4) Defendant OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limited to preclude evidence of plaintiff's alleged psychological damage (doc. no. 95) is DENIED.

(5) Defendant OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to preclude diagram of the restaurant of Defendant OHDS t/d/b/a The Original Hot Dog Shop (doc. no. 96) is GRANTED.

(6) Defendant OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to preclude Dr. Figueroa's opinions concerning future medical expenses (doc. no. 97) is DENIED.

(7) Defendant OHDS, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence relating to the posting of signs in Oakland (doc. no. 98) is GRANTED.

(8) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to preclude the defendants from arguing that the City of Pittsburgh police officers engaged in "secondary employment" with other employers do so as "independent contractors" (doc no. 99) is GRANTED.

(9) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to preclude the defendants from arguing or asserting that Deven Werling's alleged conduct inside the original constituted disorderly conduct under the Crimes Code of Pennsylvania (doc. no. 100) is GRANTED.

(10) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to preclude the defendants from arguing that probable cause existed to arrest Deven Werling for Defiant Trespass under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3503(b) (doc. no. 102) is DENIED.

(11) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to preclude the defendants from offering evidence of alleged statements made by Deven Werling after he was arrested and which did not form the basis for any such arrest and/or the filing of any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.