Romero-Valdez v. Parnall Law Firm, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
____________________
DOMINIQUE ROMERO-VALDEZ,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF
PARNALL LAW FIRM, LLC,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the parties’ remaining motions in limine (Docs.
157–161, 163, 165, 168). For the reasons discussed at the January 20, 2026, pretrial conference,
the Court rules as follows:
Defendant’s second motion in limine (Doc. 157) is denied, but the Court issues a caution
to Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid excessive or inflammatory use of the terms “lie” or “liar.”
Defendant’s third motion in limine (Doc. 158) is granted in part and denied in part; it is
granted to the extent that Ms. Romero-Valdez will not be permitted to testify regarding whether
other legal assistants modified their tasks, but it is denied in all other respects.
Defendant’s fourth motion in limine (Doc. 159) is denied.
Defendant’s fifth motion in limine (Doc. 160) is denied.
Defendant’s sixth motion in limine (Doc. 161) is granted in part and denied in part; Ms.
Romero-Valdez is permitted to testify about her own observations (i.e., if Ms. Brown was short
with her or irritated when she did not complete her additional tasks) but may not speak to Ms.
Brown’s subjective motivations or feelings.
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 218 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Defendant’s eighth motion in limine (Doc. 163) is granted in part and denied in part. Ms.
Romero-Valdez may testify about her own observations but not about Parnall Law’s knowledge.
She may testify regarding Ms. Fraire’s demeanor during the final meeting, including that she
characterized Ms. Fraire’s demeanor as threatening, but she must base this on her actual
observations (e.g., if Ms. Fraire raised her voice, interrupted Ms. Romero-Valdez, did not give
her sufficient time, etc.). Plaintiff’s counsel may argue that the ultimatum was not genuine or was
a “fake choice.” She cannot testify that she learned for the first time at her meeting with Ms.
Fraire that she could be fired at any time. She can testify as to what Ms. Fraire said and how the
statement of her at-will status made her feel. Reminding her of her at-will status could be viewed
as a threat to terminate her, and counsel may make appropriate arguments to this effect.
Defendant’s tenth motion in limine (Doc. 165) is granted.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 168) is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted
with respect to attorney’s fees, fee shifting, or characterizing counsel as bringing the case for
their own financial gain. It is denied with respect to any statement that Plaintiff is bringing the
case for monetary reasons, which may be a fair characterization in argument depending on the
evidence elicited.
It is so ordered.
____________________________________
LAURA FASHING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01084-LF-GJF Document 218 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2