What is a Motion in Limine?

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine

THOMAS J. SERGOTT VS MARRIOTT INTERNANTIONAL, INC.

Defendant Marriott International, Inc. may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder, pursuant to the First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, effective as of April 16, 2018, to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial. Defendant Marriott International, Inc. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RIDGE CONLAN, ET AL. VS ROCKIN' RESCUE, ET AL.

Such rulings will await the appropriate Motions in Limine or other evidentiary objections and rulings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PAULINA VEGA VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

., motions to decertify the class, motions for summary judgment, and/or motions in limine) that might have eliminated all or some of Plaintiff’s claims, or barred evidence/testimony in support of the claims; (iv) the risk of losing at trial (including the Court deeming the trial unmanageable on a representative basis); (v) the chances of a favorable verdict being reversed on appeal; and (vi) the difficulties attendant to collecting on a judgment (collectively, the ‘Discount Factors’).”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DANNIEL MADRID VS CANDACE HOWELL

Rather, the proofs of service indicate that motions in limine, opposition to motion for sanctions, and accompanying documents/proposed orders were served on Plaintiff. North Central District danNiel madrid, Plaintiff, v. candace howell, Defendant. Case No.: 19PDUD01269 Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s demurrer; and (2) Defendant’s demurrer BACKGROUND A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEYED SADEGHI VS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

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. II. Discovery Dispute (MTQ Deposition Subpoena and Protective Order).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 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

    Jul 09, 2020

LOPEZ VS NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE

Defendant complained both in its prior motion in limine to exclude and the underlying motion that Mr. Dillabough never held any management position wherein he rendered any opinions or reviewed any claims, that he never written or render any opinions for any insurance company where there was a claim of bad faith or breach of implied covenant of good faith and faith dealing, or that his training and experience was insufficient to qualify him as an expert.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Limine 20. 10/1/19 –Motion to Compel Discovery Responses against Defendants Yerkes and Thomson (denied) 21. 11/15/19 – Filed fifth (5th) Motion in Limine 22. 12/17/19 – Trial (judgment for Defendants) 23. 1/6/20 – Ex parte application for statement of decision (denied) 24. 2/11/20 – Ruling on Motion for New Trial (denied) 25. 2/20/20 – Ex parte application for reconsideration of 2/11/20 order (denied) 26. 2/25/20 – Notice of Appeal of 2/11/20 and 2/20/20 orders (pending) 27. 3/11/20 – Ruling on Motion

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

GEE V. AMERIPRISE AUTO AND HOME INS.

As to other practical issues that moving party asserts may arise, particularly at trial, by permitting the joinder of these arguably disparate parties and actions, any real and/or perceived disadvantage presented for any party can be resolved through available trial management tools such as the requirement of a carefully crafted special verdict form and possible issuing of orders pursuant to in limine motions regarding specified references and issues ( primarily, perhaps, reference to named defendants in a way

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

limine and other necessary pretrial filings, and the preparation of trial counsel for examine and cross-examine witnesses and to put on a complete defense to the jury.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CROP PRODUCTION VS. CAPTIVA VERDE

The appeal followed a two-day bench trial with no motions in limine. The Court believes 50 hours is a reasonable amount of time to devote to the respondent’s brief in the context of this matter. The Court therefore deducts 27.75 hours of Alcazar’s time, or $5,134. Second, as regards oral argument, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s counsel collectively spent a total of 156 hours in preparation time. This was excessive. In the Court’s view, no more than 80 hours of preparation time was reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

CORBIN JOHN RECKE ET AL VS ELEONORE MESTDAGH ET AL

For example, on November 18, 2019, attorney Phan billed 8.0 hours which are described as “trial preparation; review and revise witness outlines; review and analyze exhibits; telephone conferences with co-counsel re trial preparation and strategy; review and revise oppositions to motions in limine.” As noted above, such block billing exacerbates the vagueness of an attorney fee request and supports a court’s finding that time entries were inflated and non-compensable.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

limine and other necessary pretrial filings, and the preparation of trial counsel for examine and cross-examine witnesses and to put on a complete defense to the jury.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CROP PRODUCTION VS. CAPTIVA VERDE

The appeal followed a two-day bench trial with no motions in limine. The Court believes 50 hours is a reasonable amount of time to devote to the respondent’s brief in the context of this matter. The Court therefore deducts 27.75 hours of Alcazar’s time, or $5,134. Second, as regards oral argument, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s counsel collectively spent a total of 156 hours in preparation time. This was excessive. In the Court’s view, no more than 80 hours of preparation time was reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

WINDSOR CAPITAL GROUP INC VS JOHN MOLLER ET

limine.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LESSLEY VS MESIC

Nor has either side filed any of the papers that would be required for a jury trial, such as proposed instructions or motions in limine.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

HALLETT V. JACQUET, ET AL.

While potential prejudice may support a motion in limine, it is not a reason to strike part of a pleading. As a result, the motion is denied as to this phrase. Paragraph 174 This is a statement requesting punitive damages in connection with the 4AC’s breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. Because the demurrer as to this cause of action was sustained without leave to amend, the motion to strike paragraph 174 is denied as moot.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

(The court is not certain this is an enforceable promise, but would consider remedies in limine if they renege on the offer) With respect to medical providers and other caregivers, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to prove the case, not Intex’s. Attorney Jon Padilla declares that Plaintiffs will stipulate to video depositions of any Texas witness in Texas or California and to the use of such video testimony at trial. Plaintiffs also stipulate for Nina Burch to be examined by experts in California.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

IAHLDHFAPIMP PAP LLC VS. ELIZABETH NOLL

This case was dismissed immediately before going to trial by granting Defendant's motion in limine. Defendant asserts that the costs could be awarded in the discretion of the court. It is this courts general practice not to allow costs under these circumstances and because the exhibits could not be helpful to the trier of fact. Therefore, the motion is granted in the amount of $3,303.69. The motion to tax conformed copies of court orders is granted in the amount of $235.93.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EUNICES ARGUETA VS WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES INC ET AL

The Court finds that its ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 does not constitute an order that deprived Plaintiff of having a fair trial.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GREGORY ROUTT VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

Indeed, the Hatai court analyzed whether or not the trial court properly granted a motion in limine, where the standard would have been that even though evidence is relevant, the probative value of that evidence does not outweigh the prejudicial effect. (Hatai, supra, at 1294, citing Evid. Code § 352.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICHARD WALLACE VS WJE TRUCKING INC ET AL

., Ltd. may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder, pursuant to the First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, effective as of April 16, 2018, to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

GREGORY ROUTT VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

Indeed, the Hatai court analyzed whether or not the trial court properly granted a motion in limine, where the standard would have been that even though evidence is relevant, the probative value of that evidence does not outweigh the prejudicial effect. (Hatai, supra, at 1294, citing Evid. Code § 352.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC ET AL VS MONSTER LLC ET AL

Moreover, Beats argues that, as discussed in Beats’s Motions In Limine Nos. 6 and 7, Monster did not disclose these new claims in discovery and still has not produced all relevant discovery regarding these claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

FATIC argues that if, once produced, Plaintiffs believe that any of the records sought should not be admissible at trial, the proper mode of challenging their use is by a motion in limine. The Court finds that FATIC has not violated the August 23, 2019 protective order and that such order did not require FATIC to withdraw its subpoena. Additionally, nothing before the Court indicates that all the documents requested by the subpoena have been produced.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 85     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.