Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Ass'n

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK HEIMKES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:22-cv-448-TFM-N
)
FAIRHOPE MOTORCOACH RESORT )
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS )
ASSOCIATION, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
SHEARLDINE MARIE ALLFREY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:22-cv-496-TFM-N
)
FAIRHOPE MOTORCOACH RESORT )
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS )
ASSOCIATION, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
The non-jury trial of these matters commenced on May 27, 2025. The Court originally set
the trial for nine (9) trial days. However, at the pretrial conference Plaintiffs’ counsel requested
the case be bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. The Court did not formally
bifurcate that the time, but agreed that the presentation of evidence should be structured into
liability first followed later with damages. The Court held the formal bifurcation in abeyance and
indicated a decision would be made by the end of the first week based upon where the presentation
of evidence stood at the time. When asked, Plaintiffs’ Counsel represented at the pretrial
conference that he expected the liability portion of this trial could be concluded in possibly two
Case 1:22-cv-00448-TFM-N Doc# 267 Filed 06/13/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
days. Specifically, the following exchange occurred during the pretrial conference:
THE COURT: How long do you think the plaintiffs’ liability portion would take to
present? And that includes both plaintiffs.
ATTORNEY EATON: Depending on the other motion that I have before you for
some of our witnesses to appear remotely, if we could get those, you know,
succinctly scheduled, think I would knock a good number of witnesses out in two
days.
THE COURT: Okay.
ATTORNEY EATON: If not less. Depending on, again, how deep we have to go
into the various conversations and details and stuff like that, Your Honor.
Pretrial Conf. Tr. at 9-10.
The Court granted the request for some witnesses to appear remotely, though Plaintiffs did
not satisfy the need for all of them. However, Plaintiffs did not indicate a change in his trial
estimate for the liability phase.
The Court started with the presentation of evidence on liability on May 27, 2025. Due to
unforeseen circumstances, the Court was only able to meet for seven (7) trial days as the
undersigned was ill on May 30 and June 2, 2025. Regardless, even with that illness, the
presentation of evidence fell well outside the two-day projection by Plaintiffs’ counsel and he is
still not complete with his presentation. On June 6, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiffs’ counsel
that he would be permitted three (3) more days to conclude the liability portion of his case. This
time limit is not meant to restrict Plaintiffs from presenting evidence necessary to prove their
claims but rather is meant to promote efficiency and to prevent the needless presentation of
cumulative evidence.
At the telephone conference earlier today, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicted he intends to call an
additional fifteen (15) witnesses as to liability and that he would need approximately 25 hours to
present them. Therefore, the Court ORDERED Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide by June 26, 2025 a
Case 1:22-cv-00448-TFM-N Doc# 267 Filed 06/13/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
list of his witnesses with a proffer of exactly what he expects to get from each witness and a time
frame for each, as the Court only has so much time to give and Plaintiffs’ presentation is falling
grossly outside of his projected estimate of liability. Therefore, the Court will again review its
time allotment after receiving the Plaintiffs’ proffer of the evidence/witnesses remaining.
Defendant indicated it needs approximately two days for its evidence and witness presentation on
the liability phase. The Court now turns to the explanation and support for the time limitation on
the Plaintiffs’ presentation of their cases.
Time limits on the presentation of evidence are not prohibited and, in fact, are recognized
as necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(O); Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., 733 F.2d 463, 473
(7th Cir. 1984) (upholding time limit imposed by district court and stating that “in this era of
crowded district court dockets federal district judges not only may but must exercise strict control
over the length of trials.”). However, the time limits imposed should be reasonable. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(O); Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 473 (noting that any time limit should be reasonable
and should not be too rigidly enforced). While the Eleventh Circuit has not yet spoken on a Court’s
imposture of time limits on a trial, there does not appear to be any dispute among the Circuits that
have spoken on the issue. For example, the Ninth and Fifth Circuits have found “[a] district court
is generally free to impose reasonable time limits of a trial.” See General Signal Corp. v. MCI
Telecommunications Corps., 66 F.3d 1500, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Deus v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
15 F.3d 506, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 (1994)). The Eighth and Ninth Circuits
have also held that time limits may be used to “prevent delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence.” Monotype Corp. v. Int’l Typeface Corp., 43 F.3d 443, 450
(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Johnson v. Ashby, 808 F.2d 676, 678 (8th Cir. 1987)). The Seventh Circuit
has noted, however, that rigid and inflexible hour limits on trials are generally disfavored. See
Case 1:22-cv-00448-TFM-N Doc# 267 Filed 06/13/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 4 of 4
Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 473. Further, other district courts within this Circuit have found that time
limits on the presentation of evidence at trial are not prohibited, but are recognized as necessary.
See Walter Int’l Prods., Inc. v. Salinas, Civ. Act. No. 07-20136-CIV-SEITZ/O’SULLIVA, 2009
WL 9113379, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131963, at *28 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2009).
Finally, as discussed at the telephone conference, the liability phase of this trial is set to
resume on July 8, 2025. For scheduling purposes, the Court also puts the parties on notice that it
has additional criminal trials set to begin on July 14, 2025.
DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2025.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00448-TFM-N Doc# 267 Filed 06/13/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>