United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM (DOC. 528)
Arbuckle, Magistrate Judge
the Court is a Motion in Limine (Doc. 528). Briefs have been
filed (Doc.s 529 and 535) and the matter is ripe for
decision. The case in this court began in August of 2006. The
underlying events took place between 2003 and 2005. Parts of
these facts from this case have been in no less than six
different courts. Most parties have had at least one change
of counsel, just in this court, over the last thirteen (13)
years. Claims are made by Donna Deitrick against her
ex-husband, Robert Yoncuski, and several others, for
restitution and psycological injury arising from the theft of
her personal property. On the eve of trial, the moving
Defendants have discovered what they perceive as a potential
defense: “this case was decided ten years ago.”
The motion questions the application of res judicata and
collateral estoppel to issues in a federal court civil
conspiracy and conversion case from a state court divorce
reasons that follow the Motion in Limine to preclude proof of
the value of the items in the stolen safe will be DENIED.
Motion in Limine seeks an Order precluding any further
testimony or evidence concerning the value of the contents of
the safe based upon either res judicata or collateral
estoppel. Plaintiff responds that relief should be denied on
both procedural and substantive grounds.
in their Motion in Limine, raise five questions for the Court
1. Whether the issue of the value of the safe's contents
has already been litigated by a court of competent
2. Whether the contents of the safe were taken into
consideration by a court of competent jurisdiction in
rendering a final judgment in equitable distribution between
Plaintiff and Defendant Robert Yoncuski?
3. Whether plaintiff was a party in the divorce case that
resulted in an equitable distribution award that considered
the dissipation of the safe's contents?
4. Whether plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to
litigate the issue of the value of the safe's contents in
the divorce case?
5. Whether the determination of the value of the safe's
contents was essential to the judgment on ...