Federal Evidence Review

First Circuit rejects party’s claim that it could challenge a motion in limine ruling after a stipulation on the issue was later entered and read to the jury, “having freely stipulated to a key fact, [defendant] Señor Frog must now live with the consequences,” in Rodriguez v. Señor Frog's de la Isla, Inc., __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. April 12, 2011) (No. 09–2548)

Stipulations can facilitate the presentation of evidence without calling witnesses or presenting other proof. A stipulation may involve an uncontroverted matter or an issue upon which the parties mutually see no advantage in presenting witnesses or exhibits. The First Circuit recently considered the binding nature of civil stipulations after they are freely entered.

In the case, plaintiff Rodriguez, a college student and waitress, filed a personal injury action against Señor Frog's de la Isla, Inc. after she was struck on the side of the road while receiving assistance after her engine died. Driver Estrada was driving a Mitsubishi Mirage registered to Señor Frog. His blood-alcohol level was “nearly double the legal limit.” Initially, Rodriguez lacked any vital signs but recovered. She filed a diversity action against Señor Frog, bringing claims for negligence and negligent entrustment. Before trial, the court granted her motion in limine barring evidence that the driver had owned the Mitsubishi. During the plaintiff’s case in chief, the parties stipulated that Señor Frog “owned the Mitsubishi Mirage at the time of the collision.” Señor Frog, _ F.3d at _. The jury heard the stipulation. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $450,000.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the motion in limine ruling which excluded evidence that the driver owned the vehicle. The First Circuit declined to revisit the ruling in light of the stipulation. As the circuit noted, after a stipulation is “freely-made,” the stipulation “bind[s] the parties, the trial court, and the appellate court too.” Señor Frog, _ F.3d at _. The circuit noted precedent in support of this position:

• H. Hackfeld & Co. v. United States, 197 U.S. 442, 446 (1905) (“we know no rule of public policy which will prevent the United States Attorney from stipulating with the defendant in a case of this character as to the ultimate facts in the controversy”)
• United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 889 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“Stipulations of fact bind the court and parties.”; "one party" to a stipulation "need offer no evidence to prove it and the other is not allowed to disprove it") (internal quotation marks omitted))
• Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[U]nder federal law, stipulations and admissions in the pleadings are generally binding on the parties and the Court. Not only are such admissions and stipulations binding before the trial court, but they are binding on appeal as well.") (quoting Ferguson v. Neighborhood Housing Services, 780 F.2d 549, 551 (6th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted))
• Fisher v. First Stamford Bank and Trust Co., 751 F.2d 519, 523 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting “a stipulation of fact that is fairly entered into is controlling on the parties and the court is bound to enforce it”; enforcing a stipulation concerning the issue of damages))
'

For other comparable cases noting the binding nature of stipulations, consider:

• Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2007) (“Once a party has entered into a stipulation, however, that party is not at liberty to renege unilaterally on a stipulated fact without leave of court, which ordinarily will not be granted absent a showing of good cause.”)
• Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Richard Lundgren, Inc. , 314 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2002) (“a party may be relieved of a stipulation for good cause — which means, in a nutshell, that good reason must exist and that relief must not unfairly prejudice the opposing party or the interests of justice”)
• TI Fed. Credit Union v. DelBonis, 72 F.3d 921, 928 (1st Cir. 1995) (“Litigation stipulations can be understood as the analogue of terms binding parties to a contract. As in contract law though, rules limiting litigants to trial stipulations are not absolute. Case law is clear that a stipulation of counsel originally designed to expedite the trial should not be rigidly adhered to when it becomes apparent that it may inflict a manifest injustice upon one of the contracting parties. Parties will usually be relieved of their stipulations where it becomes evident that the agreement was made under a clear mistake.") (citations and quotation marks omitted)
• Gander v. Livoti, 250 F.3d 606, 609 (8th Cir. 2001) (Unlike stipulations on matters of law, “stipulations by the parties regarding questions of fact are conclusive. Trial courts are bound by the facts established by the stipulation. Valid stipulations are controlling and conclusive, and courts must enforce them. Courts cannot make contrary findings.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted)

Parties are not required to enter into stipulations and may have varied reasons for doing so. As the Señor Frog case and other cited cases highlight, after a stipulation is freely entered, the courts will view with great disfavor any efforts to walk from the stipulation.