Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant related to an employment claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant hired a Business Valuation Expert Witness to provide expert testimony. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (Balbed v. Eden Park Guest House, LLC – United States District Court – District of Maryland – August 7th, 2019) involves an employment claim. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, her former employer, did not pay her wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Montgomery County, Maryland minimum wage law. The defendant has hired Business Valuation Expert Witness Christine Limparis to provide testimony. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The plaintiff argues that Limparis’s testimony should be excluded because it is not reliable or relevant under Daubert. First, the plaintiff asserts that Limparis is not qualified to offer expert testimony on the reasonable costs to the defendant of providing the plaintiff with board, lodging, and other facilities during the course of her employment. In addition, the plaintiff argues that Limparis’s calculations are based on incorrect and inaccurate data and assumptions.
The court opines that Limparis is qualified to provide expert opinion testimony in the current case. The court notes that she is a certified public accountant with more than 20 years of experience. In addition, the court states that Limparis has obtained numerous certifications related to her work as an accountant and has experience overseeing an accounting firm’s business valuation practice.
In addition, the court opines that Limparis’s testimony is reliable. The court opines that she made her opinion based on data provided to her by the defendant. The court notes that the data that the defendant provided her was related to the costs that were incurred in operating its business. In addition, the court opines that the calculations she used are the product of Lamparis’s training as an accountant. The court also opines that Limparis appropriately used her experience as an accountant to create logical formulas for coming up with the costs of the plaintiff’s board, lodging, and other facilities.
Next, the court opines that Limparis’s testimony is reliable. The court notes that her opinion is based on her experience as an accountant and on calculations she took from data that is available to the plaintiff. Also, the court opines that her opinion is not based on a theory that can be tested, subject to peer review, or have a known or potential rate of error.
The court also opines that Limparis’s opinion is relevant.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Christine Limparis is denied.