There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to exclude" is at issue. e.g.,
In Easterby v. Clark (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 772, the Second District Court of Appeal discussed the issue of when exclusion is appropriate under the reasoning of Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557; Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907 and Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140. A party’s expert may not offer testimony at trial that exceeds the scope of his deposition testimony if the opposing party has no notice or expectation that the expert will offer the new testimony, or if notice of the new testimony comes at a time when deposing the expert is unreasonably difficult. Id. at 781.
Exclusion of evidence at trial for discovery violations is a drastic sanction. It requires evidence of willful abuse of the discovery process and substantial prejudice. See Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.
The evidence is admissible to impeach the testimony of a witness who testifies that the condition was not dangerous. Love v. Wolf (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 822, 831.
The motion to exclude is applicable to many kinds of evidence. For example, motions to exclude:
witnesses; Evidence Code, §§ 350, 352, 702
police report and opinions of investigating officer; Vehicle Code, § 20013; Evidence Code, § 805
expert opinions not offered at deposition; Kennemur v. Jones (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907; Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557, 565.
evidence of expert’s testing of tile; Pullin v. Super. Ct. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1165
irrelevant evidence; Evidence Code, §§ 350, 352
prior alcohol/drug use; Evidence Code, § 787
testimony regarding amount of reasonable medical charges; Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.300
Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine
1. Motion to preclude defendants from raising prejudicial subjects during voir dire
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
2. Motion to preclude evidence regarding selection or retention of counsel
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
3. Motion to preclude evidence of plaintiff Patricia Yasui's smoking history
The motion is denied without prejudice.
Pla...
..e first purpose because the tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds her.
Plaintiffs also argue that the smoking history is inadmissible for purposes of evaluation of life expectancy because no medical expert has been disclosed on this subject and introduction of the evidence for this purpose will cause the jury to speculate. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's only retained medical expert is Dr. Yo...
The following tentative rulings are based on the papers and current pleadings presented for the Court's review by Plaintiff and Defendant in the above entitled matter.
The Court reserves the right to change its rulings after oral argument, reserve or modify any ruling after any indicated 402 hearings and/or the time of trial, and/or to require additional briefing from the parties as the trial pro...
..l are ordered to advise their witnesses regarding the relevant court rulings. A witness's failure to follow the Court's orders will be followed by an immediate inquiry into whether counsel adequately advised the witness of the limitations regarding his or her testimony. The Court will sanction counsel for failure to follow Court orders.
In addition to the tentative rulings given below, the Court...
Motions in Limine – Tentative Rulings
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
Motion to Exclude Misleading Evidence
Relying of Evidence Code section 352, plaintiff seeks to exclude "mention and any reference at trial that no one else was injured on defendants' property prior to Ms. Gomez injury or that Ms. Gomez or the other tenants in her apartment failed to complain about prior problems with the stair...
..e testing were sufficiently similar to the conditions in plaintiff's apartment to be relevant.
Defendants Motions in Limine
1. Motion to Exclude Prior Felony Conviction of Steven Henderson for DUI
The motion is granted.
Defendant seeks to exclude a DUI from the 1990s. In response plaintiff contends that the witness had 5 felony convictions including a 1991 conviction for transportation and...
Roberts v. Downtown Plaza, LLC – Case No. 34-2009-00035722 – Motions in Limine – Tentative Rulings
The following is a copy of the tentative ruling that will be distributed at the first day of trial on February 14, 2011. Because this hearing involves a pretrial motion, this preliminary ruling does not excuse the parties from their obligations to appear and will not become final simply because a he...
..violate a ruling before the court has made an explicit order changing any of the rulings below.
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude reference to tax information
The motion is granted. It is unopposed.
2. Motion to exclude reference to potentially prejudicial issues during voir dire
The motion is granted. It is unopposed.
3. Motion to exclude reference to settlement discussions...
NOTICE:
The following are the Court's tentative rulings with respect to the motions filed in connection with the case below.
Department 16
Superior Court of California
720 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor
Kevin R. Culhane, Judge
Sharon Brown, Clerk
Macklin v. Americrete – Case No. 34-2008-00022710 – Motions in Limine – Tentative Rulings.
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude witn...
..eeks to preclude the experts testifying beyond the scope of the expert witness disclosure.
Defendant does not oppose the motion on the first two grounds. The motion is granted for that reason.
Defendant opposes the motion on the third ground because plaintiff's questions of the expert witnesses at deposition exceeded the scope of the designation. Defendant argues it would not be unfairly prejudi...
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude new opinion testimony of experts
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
2. Motion to exclude evidence of lack of helmet
The motion is provisionally granted.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence that he was not wearing a bicycle helmet at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff contends the evidence is not relevant because he had no d...
..fendant also contends that his affirmative defense of contributory negligence is sufficient to encompass the lack of helmet.
Defendant is not persuasive.
A bicyclist has the duty to exercise ordinary care. The fact that he is not wearing a helmet is not relevant to that duty in the first instance. The lack of a helmet is not a factor in the collision itself. If the lack of a helmet is at all rel...
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
vs.
TYRRELL JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Appellate No. APP-20-008631
Superior Court Docket No. 19007345
APPEAL FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Honorable Stephen Murphy
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
MICHELLE M. DYLAN
Attorney at Law
214 Dubace Avenue
San Francisco CA, 94103
Phone: (415) 548-1882
michelledylanlaw.comTABLE OF AUTHORITIES...
TABLE
AVIER ECERRA
Attorney Generalof California
ARINDER APUR
Senior Assistant Attorney General
tate ar Number: 198769
TACEY L. OBERTS
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
State Bar Number: 237998
Ethan A. Turner
Deputy
THOMAS W. J. PURTELL, ESQ. (SBN 229961)
THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. J. PURTELL
534 Pacific Ave., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 722-6291
Facsimile: (415) 834-5591
Email: tpur[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
CURTIS CHUDE, an individual,
NICHOLAS KANILLOPOOLOS, an individual,
ELISEO LIWAG, an individual, and
ESTEVAN HINOJOSA, an individual,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CURTIS CHUDE, an individual; ) C
1 JEFFERY C. LONG – State Bar # 226618
ERIC S. EMANUELS – State Bar # 140168
2 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP
2021 N Street
3 Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 443-4849
4 Fax: (916) 443-4855
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Defendants/Cro
1 JEFFERY C. LONG – State Bar # 226618
ERIC S. EMANUELS – State Bar # 140168
2 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP
2021 N Street
3 Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 443-4849
4 Fax: (916) 443-4855
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Defendants/Cro
1 JEFFERY C. LONG – State Bar # 226618
ERIC S. EMANUELS – State Bar # 140168
2 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP
2021 N Street
3 Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 443-4849
4 Fax: (916) 443-4855
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants
1 JEFFERY C. LONG – State Bar # 226618
ERIC S. EMANUELS – State Bar # 140168
2 LEVANGIE LAW GROUP
2021 N Street
3 Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 443-4849
4 Fax: (916) 443-4855
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Defendants/Cro
Y~ nw B® w&
22
23
24
25
26
2
CARICHOFF
ROBERT A.C.
500. Coolidge: Dri
vlsom, California
~phone: 916) 47
mile: (916)471-c
’ GROUP, P
“HOFF (ti 1066)
tite 190
‘4
Attorney Naintiffs
y a 1
A.
gS.
G)/PERIOR COUR. CALIFORNIA
‘OUNTY OF SAC ‘ENTO
1 NALA POINT < Cas ;34-2018-002301.
M. SA MCAFEE,
. a PLAL ¥S’ AMENDED
tiffs, “ NOTIC, MOTION TO
gS. EXCLUD. ‘“STIMONY OF
v. % DEFENDA. i
4 SUPPLEME: “LY
HERMAN L. ad DOES 1 DESIGNATEL ERT DR.
through 10, inc % KEVIN MIKAE. ‘FOR
YOLATION OF
DOCUMENT: Transcript Filed [401323]
CASE: S-CV-0043463
DATE: 05/18/2020
NUMBER OF PAGES: 63
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
au SS &
J, Justin McKenn.
“ARBONE, SMI1
9 Arden Way, Sur
mento, CA 95815-
»N 238311)
KOYAMA
Te,
re: (916) 480-1071
Facsi. 916) 481-0990
Attomey. Yefendant
HERMAN .
2,
SUPERIG @urt OF CALIFG >, COUNTY OF S. AMENTO
L.
S,NLIMITED CIVIL ISDICTION
KEAU A POINT, MARi Case | *-2018-00230191-c 4-GDS
MCAFt.
2, DEFEND. _'S OPPOSITION
Plaintiffs, &. | PLAINTIF, ‘OTIONTOEXC OF
% TESTIMONY “EFENDANT’S
SUPPLEMENT. ¥ DESIGNATED
"ERMAN LAU an. =S | through 10, *XPERT DR. KE. AIKAELIAN
usive
Dewgee-
Y nw & w&
10
12
13
22
23
24
25
6
2s
CARICHOFF ' GROUP, P'
ROBERT A. Cr.
400 Coolidge:Dri, ite 1
som; Califomia.
‘ohorie: (916) 47. 4
1 nile: (916) 471-6.
0
iC
OFF #21 1066)
4
ED/ENDORS.
Attorney “units
by FAX
Ger ERIOR COUR. CALIFORNIA
OUNTY OF SAC. ‘ENTO
K 0 YNALA POINT a Cas ‘34-2018-002301.
Me SA MCAFEE,
a PLAIN ‘S’ REPLY BR}.
% ‘iffs, “~ IN SUP: ™ OF MOTION .
& a EXCLUD. ‘STIMONY OF
v. %, DEFENDA:
4 SUPPLEME: “LY
HERMAN L. xd DOES 1 DESIGNATEL ERT DR.
through 10, inc.
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F I | LE Court
San Franci
MAY 0 5 2020
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JENNIFER SARKANY, RAMSEY
ABOUREMELEH, SANDRA FIERRO,
and NINA ROBIN
PLAINTIFFS,
VS.
CHRISTIE WEST, TIMOTHY WEST,
and DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
DEFENDANTS.
Case No. CGC-18-571355
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL AS TO TIMOTHY WEST
ONLY AND CONDITIONALLY
DENYING MOTIO
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
APPELLATE DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
CALIFORNIA ) App. Case No. 8604
)
Plaintiff/Respondent )
) Appeal from Superior Court,
v. ) San Francisco,
) Case No. 19001004
)
)
DENNIS CHUK WU )
)
Defendant/Appellant )
)
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for
The City and County of San Francisco
Hon. Andre
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
DIVISION 3
Office of the County Clerk
San Francisco County Superior Court - Main
Attention: Civil Appeals
400 McAllister Street, 1st Floor 2 es
San Francisco, CA 94102 APR -7 2020
CLERK OF FHE/COURT
SAN FRANCISCO PRINT MEDIA COMPANY, me Deputy Clerk
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
HEARST CORPORATION et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
San Franelseo County Superior Court
A152930
San Francisco County Super.
10
11
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
Award P. Dudensi. _»« No. 182221) A FILEDJEN. SED
rew J. Collins (Bar 99080) XM
). Renneisen (Bar Nu 331)
Th A. Reyda(BarNo. _°2) WAR 16 2020
Thel. “ | |
1610 Rs Suite 220 t ‘adden, Deputy Clerk
Sacramentc 15811 i TT
Telephone: (. 48-6400
Facsimile: (916, “401
\ttorney for Plaintitt eS
%
SUPERIOK. RT OFTHESTA1 CALIFORNIA
FORTh %UNTYOFSACRA. TO
DEAN HIC yy and through his “).) Case No. 34-20. 186569
successor-in-i1. DENNIS AGUIL, &
&. SECOND SUPPL. NTAL
GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ., S.B. #113603
JAMES P. NEVIN, ESQ., S.B. #220816
[email protected]
BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
Attorneys at Law
222 Rush Landing Road
P.O. Box 6169
Novato, California 94948-6169
(415) 898-1555
At
~~ nN Us w
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
76
2
CARICHOFF GROUP,
ROBERT A. Cz 4YOFF 2) 311068)
400 Coolid, a Drix ‘ite 1
lsom, California . 4
~ohone? ¥ 16): 47, 4
s mile: (916):471-6.
Attorney . ants
e
@PERIOR COUR: CALIFORNIA FAX
YUNTY OF SAC. NTO
Kk NALA POINT, : ‘SSA Cas, *34-2018-002301s
Mc 7&5, a
‘ iffs, “% EX PAR. PPLICATION
“& FORANt “R
v. *@ SHORTEN: “IME ON
MOTION TG “LUDE
HERMAN Ls. 4 DOES 1 TESTIMONY v
through 10, inci. YEFENDANT’S
Rowe Te oee
Defendants. “IGNATED EX) SIN
‘ as TI
oO ON DM PWN
NN NY NY NY NN NY NH BB BR Be Be Be Be eR Re
OAnN DUM FWN RF DO DOD DOAN DU PWN HP OO
erlor Court of Californ|
Sup County of Placer
MAR 1 0 2020
Jake Chatter: .
Executive Officer &
By: M. Taylor, Dep’
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
ESSENTIAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, Case No.: SCV - 40825
INC.,
Plaintiff, Tentative Rulings On
Motions In Limine
vs.
PACIFIC AIR CONDITIONING &
HEATING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTI
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BWA LAW GROUP APC
Hillary Johns, Esq. (SBN 167944)
1901 E. Fourth Street, Suite 150
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: (714) 581-8838
Facsimile: (714) 581-8836
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Defendants and Cross-
Complainants, MARK PINSUKANJANA,
BRYAN YEDINAK, individually and doing business as
ARCHITEKTUR, MODERNBOOK, and
THEMES+PROJECTS, a California partnership
Doing business as MODERNBOOK and THEMES+PROJECTS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STAT
