Letter,Correspondence: Boyce Doris Vs Laptosh Brandon

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MID-L-003621-19 07/08/2022 12:43:18 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20222511400



                                              Law Offices
                                       Stathis & Leonardis
                                         32 South Main Street
                                       Edison, New Jersey 08837
                                            Tele: (732) 494-0600
                                            Fax: (732) 494-0206
Gregory A. Stathis                                                                    Sean M. Mahoney
Member of NJ Bar                                                                  Member of NJ & PA Bar
Nicholas J. Leonardis                                                                    Todd M. Kelly
Member of NJ & NY Bar                                                                  Member of NJ Bar
Certified by the Supreme Court of
New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney
                                                                                  File No.: 19-4677SMM

                                              July 8, 2022

VIA E-courts
Hon. Michael V. Cresitello, Jr., PJ CV
Middlesex County Courthouse
56 Paterson Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901

                                             Re: Boyce v. Laptosh
                                                 Docket No.: MID-L-3621-19

Dear Judge Cresitello:

This office represents the plaintiff, Doris Boyce. This matter is scheduled for trial on July 11, 2022.
We previously filed our Pre-Trial Submission .

Since that date, we settled with one of the defendants. We therefore amend Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial
Submission to include the attached motion in limine.



                                                   Respectfully submitted,




                                                   Sean M. Mahoney
SMM/rld- Enc.
      MID-L-003621-19 07/08/2022 12:43:18 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20222511400




Stathis & Leonardis LLC
32 South Main Street
Edison, NJ 08837
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Our File No. 17-4078SMM
Sean M. Mahoney, Esq.
Attorney ID No. 155812015

 DORIS BOYCE,                                   :   SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                :   MIDDLESEX VICINAGE
 Plaintiff,                                     :   LAW DIVISION
                                                :
 v.                                             :   DOCKET NO. MID-L-3621-19
                                                :
 BRANDON LAPTOSH, et al                         :   CIVIL ACTION
                                                :
 Defendant                                      :   PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
                                                :   TO BAR REFERENCE TO THE
                                                :   SETTLING UNINSURED MOTORIST
                                                    DEFENDANT

                                       INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiff Doris Boyce respectfully moves the Court in limine to bar the defense from

reference to the settlement between Plaintiff and former defendant, Government Employees

Insurance Company (“GEICO”).

                        FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          On June 21, 2017, Defendant Brandon Laptosh rear-ended Plaintiff. Thereafter, the

Defendant claimed that he was struck by an unidentified vehicle and pushed into Plaintiff’s

vehicle. Therefore, Plaintiff included GEICO as a phantom vehicle/UM defendant.

          On June 24, 2022, GEICO tendered its $15,000 UM policy limit and Plaintiff agreed to

accept.

                                      LEGAL ANALYSIS

          In Hernandez v. Chekenian, 447 N.J. Super. 355 (Law Div. 2016), a published decision,

Hon. Joseph L. Rea, J.S.C. ruled that a Jury cannot learn that a defendant has settled when the
     MID-L-003621-19 07/08/2022 12:43:18 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20222511400




settlement occurred prior to the commencement of trial. There, a defendant’s policy limit was

tendered and accepted prior to trial. Id. at 356-57. The Court held that it was inappropriate to give

a settling defendant jury charge when the party in question settled and exited prior to trial. Id. at

357. The Court specifically noted that “there is no effect of a settlement upon a jury’s

deliberation” and that “[t]he fact that a tortfeasor settled, for whatever reason, is completely

irrelevant and obviously, highly prejudicial to a plaintiff.” Id. at 358 (emphasis added). The

Court continued that if a defendant at trial establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the

party who settled, then that settling party will appear on the verdict sheet for the jury’s

consideration. Id. at 358-59. However, “[n]othing about this analysis even remotely suggests that

the jury should be told that that settling party paid money to the plaintiff.” Id. at 359.

       The Court concluded as follows:

                       If a defendant settles during trial, then it is logical
                       that the jury should be told something about why that
                       party is no longer participating in the case. Short of
                       that particular state of affairs it simply makes no
                       sense for a court to tell a jury that there were other
                       defendants in the case but they settled before the trial
                       began. Such information is not relevant and it is
                       highly and unduly prejudicial.

                       [Id.]

       Here, Plaintiff settled with GEICO prior to trial. The defense attorney cannot advise the

jury of the settlement. Therefore, all references to the settling defendant, GEICO, must be barred.



 DATE: July 8, 2022                                                           /s/Sean M. Mahoney
                                                                            SEAN M. MAHONEY