Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Timothy Glick v. KF Pecksland LLC
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 12624-CB
Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware; November 16, 2017; Delaware; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Timothy and Renee Glick, plaintiffs in a case against The Bleachers Corporation and Samuel Klein, faced a motion in limine from Klein and KF Peckland LLC to exclude certain evidence at trial. The Court denied this motion but allowed for evidentiary objections during post-trial briefs, with the stipulation that any unasserted objections would be waived. Defendants raised objections to three categories of documents included in the plaintiffs' evidence. The first category involved transcripts from a prior case where Klein was sanctioned for misappropriating funds, which plaintiffs intended to use to challenge Klein's credibility and demonstrate a pattern of fraudulent behavior. The second category included documents related to Klein's guilty plea for violating public health laws in a nursing home he operated, and a related New York Times article. The third category was a complaint filed against Klein and others in 2017 alleging securities and common law fraud. The Court ordered that the documents from the first category could not be admitted to challenge Klein’s credibility under Rule 404(a)(3) due to their classification as extrinsic evidence, which is not permitted for credibility attacks under Rule 608. Additionally, the use of these documents under Rule 404(b) was limited, as the Court would apply a five-factor test to determine admissibility, focusing on the relevance, purpose, proof, timing, and balance of probative value against prejudicial effect of the evidence. The Court found that sanctions against Klein for misusing corporate funds were inadmissible in this case, as the act, though proven, was not material to the central issue of whether Klein fraudulently induced the Glicks to invest in Bleachers. The plaintiffs' attempt to use this evidence to establish Klein's character or intent was rejected under Rule 404(a), which prohibits the use of character evidence for proving behavior in conformity. Klein's prior inconsistent statement regarding bank loan proceeds was admissible under Rule 613, as it contradicted his trial testimony. However, evidence related to the nursing home he operated was excluded due to Rules 402, 404, 405, and 608, which collectively prohibit using extrinsic evidence of character traits. Similarly, evidence from the Jones complaint, aimed at undermining Klein's credibility and showing a pattern of deceit, was also ruled inadmissible. The allegations lacked the necessary proof to meet the clear and conclusive standard for Rule 404(b) and did not constitute a prior inconsistent statement per Rule 613. The Court clarified that it may still consider Klein's direct trial admissions, such as his guilty plea for nursing staff inadequacy and prior sanctions, to assess his credibility, without reliance on extrinsic evidence.