What is a Motion in Limine?

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived. Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in opposition to that motion showing the existence of triable issues of fact as to the application of equitable estoppel, and have produced evidence sufficient to show triable issues of material fact as to equitable estoppel in opposition to the current motion as well. (Opp. SSUF ¶422.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(CRC 3.1800 (a)(1); Not required in UD cases) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A_________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 24, 2015, Plaintiff and Luis Arturo Hinojosa (“LAH”) entered into an agreement (“Agreement #3”) wherein Plaintiff agreed to lend LAH $4,000.00 in cash; in return, LAH agreed to repay Plaintiff $4,000.00 plus 3% interest ($120.00) on the principal amount owed per month in two months or less. Plaintiff alleges that LAH did not make any payments on Agreement #3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff issued 2 checks made payable to Round Table, one for $24,750.00 (i.e., for the vehicle in Draft No. 001495) and the other for $11,550.00 (i.e., for the vehicle in Draft No. 001496.) After the checks had been sent to Round Table, Plaintiff learned that the vehicle price was to be paid directly to the selling dealer, and that only the broker fee was to be paid directly to Round Table. Round Table cashed the checks and refuse to return the monies to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

Cotton, Judge presiding in Department A, for further reassignment. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Kim, Judge presiding in Department S27, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The care plan was timely filed by Conservator on 9/6/19. The court has reviewed the plan, and it is complete. No appearance is required. The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20....

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The care plan was timely filed by Conservator on 9/6/19. The court has reviewed the plan, and it is complete. No appearance is required. The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20....

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

The following defects are noted: The Judicial Council Request for Entry of Default Form CIV-100 identifies the following amounts: $43,610 as “[d]emand of complaint,” $35,642.50 in general damages, $4,355.00 in interest, $3,210.69 in costs and $1,698.00 in attorney fees; however, the “TOTALS” amount is listed as $39,997.50 (the above figures, however total $80,548.69).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Background Plaintiff YesLender, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff provides working capital to qualified small businesses—referred to as “merchants”—by purchasing a portion of a merchant’s future receivables in exchange for a cash advance. Plaintiff provides these merchants with a lump-sum cash payment in exchange for a negotiated amount of said merchant’s daily receivables, until the agreed-upon remittance amount is fully remitted to Plaintiff (usually 6-12 months).

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

(Motion 7:21-26.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

The only specific monetary figure allegedly owed to Plaintiff (i.e., $150,000.00) is set forth in the body of the complaint (i.e., see Complaint, ¶¶13, 23, 26, 29, 31 and 34). In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint.(See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) The amount demanded in the complaint is determined both from the prayer and from the damage allegations in the complaint. (National Diversified Services, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

ROGER PHILIPP 19SMUD01621 TENTATIVE DECISION This unlawful detainer action resulted in a judgment for the defendant after the Court granted an oral motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its verified complaint, plaintiff alleged the existence of a lease with an attorneys’ fee clause in favor of the property owner in the event of a default by the tenant. On February 3, 2020, the Court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

In or around March 2018, Plaintiff met Thomas Chen (“Chen”). Chen advised Plaintiff that he had been operating a successful business, Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), for many years and could assist Plaintiff to open a business and obtain a visa. On or around March 24, 2018, the parties signed a contract, in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $120,000.00 to Tissuesco and, in return, Tissuesco would open, operate and manage a company for Plaintiff and assist Plaintiff in applying for an L-1 visa.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 618. As such, the default judgment is procedurally defective and lacks admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Linfield, Judge presiding in Department 34, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

On November 15, 2019, the Court denied First American Title Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

However, “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . .” (CCP § 580(a).) “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Plaintiffs additionally seek $7,647.00 (i.e., 10% of $76,746.15) in punitive damages, but concede that they “currently do not have sufficient information concerning Defendants’ wealth.” (Brief Summary of Case, 4:8-10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.