govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-9_24-cv-81213-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

 
LORI ROBINS, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
WATERFORD AT ABERDEEN 
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 
 
Defendants. 
___________________________________/ 
 
ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE 
 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant , Waterford at Aberdeen 
Association, Inc.’s Amended Partially Unopposed Omnibus Motion in Limine (the 
“Motion”) (DE [100]). Defendant Waterford at Aberdeen Association, I nc. (Defendant) 
asks the Court to exclude evidence in trial regarding (1) Defendant’s insurance coverage; 
(2) any allegations not alleged in the Amended Complaint; and (3) any damages not 
alleged in the Amended Complaint nor disclosed in Initial Disclosures. Plaintiff agrees to 
not introduce any evidence regarding Defendant’s insurance coverage, so the Court does 
not need to address the first request any further. Plaintiff opposes Defendant ’s motion 
as to the second and third requests, and Defendant’s Motion is ripe for the Court’s review. 
The Court gr ants the Motion (DE [100]) as to allegations not alleged in the Amended 
Complaint and denies in part and grants in part the Moti on as to damages not disclosed 
in Initial Disclosures. 
 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 1 of 7
2 
 
I. Motion in L imine to Exclude Allegations not Al leged in the Amended 
Complaint 
 
Defendant requests that the Court exclude allegations or cl aims not raised in the 
Amended Complaint. The Court previously addressed part of this issue in its Order (DE 
[154]) on summary judgment. The Court stated t hat “this litigation is . . . limited” to the 
allegations raised in the Amended Complaint. For allegations of discrimination, the 
litigation is limited to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant discrim inated against her by 
denying her request to modify the pool lock; refusing her request to send physical copies 
of the ACH form; and ignoring her request to submit work orders via email (for which the 
Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment). See (DE [154]). 
For Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation, each instance of retaliation is a separate 
cause of action and must have been alleged in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff cannot 
raise new instances of retaliation that she did not plead in her complaint. See Coleman 
v. Bowden, 797 Fed. Appx. 422, 430 (“The district court correctly declined to consider the 
latter basis for the retaliation claim, as Mr. Coleman cannot raise a new, unpled claim at 
the summary judgment stage. ”). Plaintiff is limited to alleging only the incidents of 
retaliation that she pl ed in her A mended Complaint (DE [29]). Defendant’s Motion (DE 
[100]) is granted as to allegations and claims not included in the Amended Complaint. 
II. Motion in Limine as to Damages Not Alleged in the Amended Complaint or 
Disclosed in Initial Disclosures 
 
Next, Defendant requests that the Court exclude any evidence of damages that 
were not raised in the Amended Complaint or disclosed in initial disclosures. 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 2 of 7
3 
 
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks “compensatory and punitive damages 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613,” attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and “any further relief this 
Court deems necessary, just and proper.” (DE [29] at 63). 
In her initial disclosures , Plaintiff provided the following information for a 
computation of damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii): 
Plaintiff is not yet able to fully compute her damages as she cannot do so 
absent discovery. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff 
discloses that she is entitled t o recover damages in the form of, inter alia, 
actual damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and 
interest. 
 
Plaintiff also experienced emotional distress and similar damages, which 
are difficult to calculate into financial figures. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff 
seeks an award of compensatory damages to include the emotional distress 
she suffered. 
 
Plaintiff anticipates that further damages calculations will depend upon 
testimony to be developed and disclosed according to the schedule set by 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court. 
 
Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiff has certain records that may be relevant 
to damages calculations. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this 
disclosure, and to make all documents and evidentiary material associated 
with such supplementation available to Defendant for inspection and 
copying pursuant to Rule 34, as discovery proceeds. 
 
(DE [100-3]). 
Plaintiff then supplemented her disclosures in Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant, 
Waterford at Aberdeen Association, Inc. First Set of Interrogatories. (DE [100-1]) with 
the following information: 
1. Actual Damages: a minimum of $142,436.98 in actual damages and interest for 
Membership fees and dues paid to Waterford for inaccessible services 
a. Expenses related to property damage from drainage issues, including: 
i. Cost of replacing landscaping throughout Plaintiff's residence 
ii. Cost of power washing patio monthly 
iii. Cost of refinishing teak patio furniture every two months 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 3 of 7
4 
 
iv. Monthly storage unit fees (10' x 20') for furniture that had to be 
moved offsite 
b. Cost of temporary repairs/modifications: $9,850 (drainage, bee removal, 
landscaping) 
2. Property Value Damages: 
a. Diminution in property value due to unaddressed maintenance: $150,000 
(based on documented forced sale loss amount) 
3. Out-of-Pocket Expenses: 
a. Legal costs and expenses (including expert fees) 
b. Disability-related assistive and Technical assistance for expenses 
4. Non-economic damages: 
a. Emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish from being 
discriminated against, segregated, and denied reasonable 
accommodations 
b. Loss of use/enjoyment of amenities (pool, voting rights, etc.) 
c. Loss of enjoyment of life and the "Florida country club resort lifestyle" that 
Plaintiff anticipated when purchasing membership 
d. Suffering violations of privacy, being threatened and harassed by 
Defendants' lawyers, being mocked by Defendants' spouses, and being 
defamed as a "troublemaker" 
e. Deprivation of the right to equal housing opportunities regardless of 
disability status 
f. Interference with Plaintiff's ability to peacefully enjoy her home 
5. Punitive Damages: 
a. Willful discrimination after notice of disability 
b. Retaliation for filing complaints 
c. Creation of hostile housing environment 
d. Intentional failure to provide reasonable accommodations
1 
 
Id. at 17-18.2 
 Defendant argues that these disclosures failed to indicate how the lump sum 
numbers were calculated, provide an allocation of sub- items, or include any supporting 
documentation.3 Accordingly, Defendant asks the Court to exclude evidence related to 
damages under Rule 37(c)(1). 
 
1 Formatting was adjusted for clarity. 
2 Most of these damages arise out of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. 
3 Defendant also argues that the Amended Complaint f ailed to mention damages related to membership 
fees, property damage, or property value diminution. But a complaint does not need to specify the 
categories of damages. R ather the complaint needs to put the defendant on notice of what conduct the 
plaintiff is seeking to hold the defendant liable for and that the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages. 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 4 of 7
5 
 
 Under Rule 26, each party must provide “a computation of each category of 
damages claimed by the disclosing party — who must also make available for inspection 
and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless 
privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including 
materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered. ” Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). A 
party must “first, disclose each category of damages they want to recover and, second, 
provide a computation of damages with supporting documentation. ” Nymbus, Inc. v. 
Chrome Fed. Credit Union, 2021 WL 8894791, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2021). Although 
a specific breakdown is not required, a party should prov ide “at least a rudimentary 
calculation.” Id. 
For non-economic damages, courts require some specific dollar number that the 
Plaintiff is seeking, even though itemization is not required. See, e.g., Pena v. Drodriguez, 
LLC, 2016 WL 4430942, at * 2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2016) (magistrate judge’s order on 
discovery motion). If the plaintiff does not designate a dollar amount for non-economic 
damages in initial disclosures, then the party may be prohibited from suggesting a specific 
amount in damages to the jury. See Evans as Tr. for Evans v. Krook, 2022 WL 1537994, 
at *15 (D. Minn. May 16, 2022) (magistrate judge’s order) (gathering cases). 
 If a party fails to properly disclose damages she is seeking, exclusion of evidence 
of damages can be an appropriate remedy if the failure to disclose was not “substantially 
justified or is harmless.” Rule 37(c)(1); Mee Indus. v. Dow Chem. Co. , 608 F.3d 1202, 
1221-22 (11th Cir. 2010) . The Eleventh Circuit has not crystalized what “ harmless” 
means, but if the defendant is unable to ascertain the amount of damages that the plaintiff 
is seeking, or if the defendant is hindered in preparing for trial, then the plaintiff ’s failure 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 5 of 7
6 
 
to disclose was not harmless. See Circuitronix, LLC v. Kinwong Elec. (Hong Kong) Co., 
993 F.3d 1299, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2021). 
 Here, Plaintiff ’s initial disclosures were very general, but she later provided a 
breakdown of the category of damages in her i nterrogatory responses. These include d 
a specific number for actual expenses she incurred in repairing her property and for 
diminution of property value. 
 Defendant argues that these disclosures were not specific enough, and that 
Plaintiff never provided documentary evidence supporting these claims. Defendant is 
seeking to exclude Plaintiff from presenting any evidence on damages. That is too broad 
a sanction. From the Court ’s b rief r eview of the record, Plaintiff has provided 
documentation to support some of her actual damages claims. See (DE [107-2] at 410, 
567, 578) . Also, Plaintiff offered to let Defendant inspect and copy other documents 
related to damages , which is what Rule 26( a)(1)(A)(iii) requires. See (DE [107] ¶ 11). 
For Plaintiff ’s actual damages and property -value diminution damages, Plaintiff has 
disclosed the amount she is seeking, and so long as she has permitted Defendant to copy 
and inspect documents supporting those damages , she may introduce evidence at trial 
of damages for those categories. 
 For Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses, namely legal fees and disability-related and 
technical assistance expenses, Plaintiff did not designate an amount she is seeking. For 
legal expenses, that makes sense, as that amount would continually increase as litigation 
proceeds. But for disability -related and technical assistance, Plaintiff could have—and 
should have—provided some figure that Defendant could have prepared to defend 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 6 of 7
7 
 
against. Instead, Plaintiff listed nothing. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot present evidence 
for damages for technical and disability-related assistance expenses. 
 For punitive and non -economic damages, Plaintiff would not be expected to 
provide an itemization, since those damages are more amorphous and by definition 
harder to categorize. But s ince Plaintiff did not specify a monetary amount that she is 
seeking in her disclosures, she may not specify a monetary amount at trial. She may 
introduce evidence that she was damaged in non- economic ways, but she may not 
request a specific monetary sum at trial. 
Finally, Plaintiff may not present evidence of any category of damages not included 
in her interrogatory answers. See Nymbus, 2021 WL 8894791, at *4. 
III. Conclusion 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion 
(DE [100]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of 
May 2026. 
 
 
 
 
Copies to counsel of record via CM/ECF 
 
Case 9:24-cv-81213-AHS Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2026 Page 7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight