Mirabilis Ventures, Inc. v. Rachlin Cohen & Holtz, LLP, 6:09-cv-00271

Mirabilis Ventures, Inc. filed bankruptcy in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, and sued Holtz and Marrero in case 6:09-cv-271 for professional misconduct.
Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence or testimony about disgorgement of Laurie Holtz’s $237,500 salary as Mirabilis’ director.
Second Amended Complaint references Holtz as an accountant; the pleading contains no clear assertion of liability tied to Holtz’s director duties.
Counts I–IV focus on accountant-client relationship, fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting, with no explicit director-based claims against Holtz.
The court held Holtz is not sued in his director capacity and that disgorgement claims could not be pursued against him as a director; director-salary evidence could not be admitted for that purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holtz can be sued for disgorgement as a director	Holtz’s director salary is at issue for disgorgement.	Complaint does not plead Holtz in his director capacity; claims target accountant duties.	Disgorgement claims against Holtz as a director are not pleadable.
Whether salary evidence can be admitted for non-director purposes	Salary evidence could rebut minimal director duties.	Evidence must be resolved at trial and cannot support director-based disgorgement.	Salary evidence cannot establish a director-based claim; not admissible for that purpose.
Procedural posture for in limine ruling on admissibility	In limine to preserve issues from prejudicial disclosure.	Pretrial ruling appropriate where issues are highly prejudicial/unresolved.	Ruling deferable pending trial; but on merits, director-based disgorgement is not permitted.

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 1984) (definition and utility of motions in limine at threshold; protect evidentiary issues)
United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1989) (denial of in limine rulings may be revisited; trial context matters)