What is a Motion in Limine?

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine

JOHN J STEF VS PUEBLO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was excluded at trial, on the grounds it was irrelevant; (e) plaintiff’s copious pre-trial and at-trial briefing, including service of five motions in limine on four different dates, all of which had to be evaluated, and three of which had to be opposed, and the submission of three separate trial briefs (36 pages, 61 pages with 70 pages of exhibits attached, and 20 pages with 150 pages of exhibits attached), all of which had to be evaluated; (f) trial over six days, involving an

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

VAEA VS. MARRA

The Court further predicts that even if the parties cannot stipulate to something of this kind, it is likely that the Court itself will craft some method of reaching necessary legal decisions before trial is commenced, such as by ordering trial briefs addressing issues in limine and/or instructional issues. These topics can be discussed at the CMC now set for November 17, it being remembered that CMC means “case management conference.” Managing will be done.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CASILIO VS. VALENTINE

Pankey is free to make a motion in limine and obtain a ruling on that issue then. 2 – Granted. Of the four allegations challenged, this is the only one that is being used to establish liability rather than to establish facts or provide context. Leave to amend is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

EGAL SHAHBAZ VS SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.

To the extent Defendant’s request to exclude evidence at trial is essentially a motion in limine, such a motion can be brought “before or during trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY ALIMONTI VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORP

In this case, unlike many others, before the matter settled the parties actually prepared-for and went to trial, where the Court entertained nearly thirty-five motions in limine and numerous other trial motions. (See Decl. Steve Mikhov, ¶¶ 24-27.) After roughly two weeks, the trial exceeded the number of expected trial days, and several jurors became unavailable forcing the Court to declare a mistrial. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2020

M.F. VS. CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

CVCHS is free to make a motion in limine as to these subparagraphs at the time of trial. The court grants the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages. A prayer for punitive damages must be supported by factual allegations sufficient to support the legal conclusion that an employee of CVCHS acted despicably and with malice or oppression and that the conditions specified Civil Code § 3294(b) are met.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Kernan billed 22.8 hours for drafting an opposition to a motion in limine. Defense counsel avers that the parties were informed that the motions would not be reviewed because of the fee dispute. (Vanderpool Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 18.) Defense counsel also points out that Kernan claims to have spent 7.7 hours preparing the opposition on July 6, 2020 even though he did not receive the motion in limine until July 7, 2020. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Kernan billed 22.8 hours for drafting an opposition to a motion in limine. Defense counsel avers that the parties were informed that the motions would not be reviewed because of the fee dispute. (Vanderpool Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 18.) Defense counsel also points out that Kernan claims to have spent 7.7 hours preparing the opposition on July 6, 2020 even though he did not receive the motion in limine until July 7, 2020. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Conversely, GEICO insists it will disclose policy limits to the selected arbitrator and not allow the issue to be resolved by motion in limine. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against GEICO alleging a cause of action for declaratory relief. Defendant GEICO demurred to the Complaint which was overruled by the Court. GEICO thereafter filed its Answer alleging various affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

PAASCH BUSINESS GROUP INC VS. PRECISION AIRPARTS SUPPORT SERVICES INC

He stated that he spent 18.6 hours preparing an opposition to Paasch's motion for summary judgment, 4.5 hours preparing two motions in limine, and 3.5 hours preparing a trial brief. His hourly rate at the relevant time was $150. Discussion A party who "prevails" on an action on a contract containing an attorneys' fee provision may move for an award of such fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a).

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

DUBOC VS. IRVINE COMPANY, LLC

They involved motions in limine and expert witness testimony. In both cases expert testimony was properly excluded because there was no reasonable basis for the expert’s opinions that the plaintiffs had been exposed to mycotoxins. (Geffcken v. D'Andrea (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1311; Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-05.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL VS THE VOLLRATH C

This document was attached as an exhibit to one of AFTT Parties’ motions in limine filed in the Wisconsin Action. T. The Settlement Agreement and accompanying cover letter filed in the Wisconsin Action. U. The Order of Dismissal filed in the Wisconsin Action. V. The Docket for the Wisconsin Action as it appeared on December 10, 2019. As the court may take judicial notice of court records of other courts, (See Evid. Code, § 452(d)), Defendants’ requests for judicial notice is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LENNOX UNIFIED SCHOOL VS. PERKINS & WILL, INC.

., Seth Shuji Sakamoto, Randolph Carl Larsen, and Wendell Lee Vaugh, Jr.’s (“Defendants”) Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Consequential Damages TENTATIVE RULING Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Consequential Damages is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KENNETH L. CREAL; ET AL VS AMITISS NASIRI; ET AL

limine may be filed and existing motions in limine may not be opposed if not already done so.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

FERNANDO SANTIAGO LOPEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC ET AL

Defendant argues that the 3.7 hours block-billed for drafting 17 motions in limine and 0.7 hours reviewing them are unreasonable because the motions were copied from templates with virtually no modifications. (Opposition at p. 7.) The Court finds that these hours are reasonable. Defendant argues that the 6.7 hours for deposing Defendant’s person most knowledgeable should be reduced because the deposition would have been more efficiently handled by one of the associates who had already worked on this case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DANIEL SWEISS VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

Finally, Plaintiff filed thirteen motions in limine, opposed 9 motions in limine, deposed 2 expert witnesses, and attended trial, which lasted a total of 22 days. (Cutler Decl. ¶¶ 30-35.) In opposition, BMW Defendants first contend that Plaintiff was served with a valid Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offer to Compromise (“998 Offer”) on July 19, 2019 for $65,658.00 and that this offer serves to cut off Plaintiff’s requested fees and costs because Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

WINTER V. MCKEAGUE

Issue 5: Filing Fees for In Limine Motions The defendants filed separate in limine motions and paid a separate motion fee. Each motion dealt with a discrete issue, which is appropriate. The motion to tax costs is DENIED. 4. Issue 6: Service of Process/Dr. Josephson Three was a question whether Dr. Josephson could be served and appear at trial. Apparently, she was “on leave.” The court asked counsel to meet and confer and attempt to resolve the matter. They did; and the defendants agreed to pay her fees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

WILLIE F. MCMULLEN, JR., ET AL. VS ANA WARD, ET AL.

Therefore, the HDSI Defendants would likely object to any such testimony and will likely file a motion in limine to prevent Plaintiffs from being able to call Ms. Truong as a witness at trial. The Court also notes that there is no evidence that Ms. Truong will not have the informed written consent from her client to testify. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the Court finds no cause to disqualify Ms. Truong. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KIUMARS SOLEIMANY ET AL VS MOSTAFA NARIMANZADEH ET AL

Specifically, Defendants submitted the Costs Memorandum and Worksheet demonstrating that the costs were incurred for filing the answers of the four defendants and for the two ex parte motions as well as filing fees for motion in limine, briefs, supplemental briefs, and response. (Decl. of Fasen, Exh. E.) In opposition, Plaintiffs do not object to the costs sought by Defendants, as such Defendants are entitled to the claimed costs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THU NGUYET THI NICKI TRAN VS GOLDEN STATE FC LLC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to seal the following documents: · Defendants’ unredacted Motion in Limine No. 17; · Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 20 in its entirety; · Defendants’ conditionally lodged exhibits 7 and 11 in support of Defendant’s [sic] Motions in Limine; · Defendants [sic] ‘[sic]redacted trial brief filed on March 13, 2020; and · Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Nos. 1 and 5 and related exhibits filed on March 10, 2020. (Application, p. 1:3-11; MPA, p. 1:5-12.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DUFF VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC

limine will be reduced by 85 hours. 31.7 hours regarding a motion for protective order will be reduced by 7 hours. 21 hours relating to the motion for attorney's fees and costs will be reduced by 5 hours.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHNSON VS MENDOZA

s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Carolyn Velotta or, in the alternative, Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony at Trial is denied. The court finds that the physician-patient privilege applies to Ms. Velotta's medical history to which the patient-litigant exception does not apply. In addition, the court does not find that Ms. Velotta waived privilege. All requests for sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEAN NICHOLE BOLLINGER VS LSG SKY CHEFS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811 [prejudice not shown by need to prepare motions in limine, enlarged exhibits, and jury instructions unless inadequate time also shown].) Rather, the prejudice that must be shown is “prejudice from the granting of relief from waiver not prejudice from the jury trial.” (Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602, 603 [fact that it takes longer to try a jury case is not prejudice from granting relief from waiver].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

LOS ANGELES BY-PRODUCTS CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALMAT CO.

Unclean Hands With respect to the doctrine of unclean hands “[t]he rule is settled in California that whenever a party who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith or other equitable principle in is prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf and acknowledge his right, or to afford him any remedy.” (Moriarty v. Carlson (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 51, 55.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

JACQUELINE VIDAL VS. PEOPLE'S FINANCIAL, INC., ET AL.

.: TC029153 Matter on calendar for: Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Trial Tentative ruling: Background Plaintiff Jacqueline Vidal alleges defendants People’s Financial, Inc., Michael Lee, and Adrian Jang (erroneously sued as Adrian Jung) failed to pay her wages when she worked as secretary for People’s Financial. Adrian Jung and Michael Lee allegedly are the owners. Vidal is self-represented. Defendant Jang now moves to bifurcate his statute of limitations defense. The motion is opposed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 87     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.