There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to exclude reference to" is an issue. e.g.,
Yee’s Motion in Limine #1, the October 21, 2019 minute order and the October 21, 2019 Notice of Ruling are devoid of any reference to Code of Civil Procedure section 1024. Yee’s counsel, moreover, attests only that “[o]n the morning of trial call plaintiff requested, in the alternative [i.e., to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1], that the Court reopen discovery for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to be re-deposed about the new documents. That request was granted.
Jul 14, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The court’s ruling with respect to Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 relates to “website printouts . . . includ[ing] commercial websites for the sale of real property . . . .” (Seibert Decl., Exh. E.) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 was for the “Internet search results [that] appear to be obtained from the websites:” Trulia.com,” “Zillow.com,” “PropertyShark.com,” and “Realtor.com. on December 6, 2018 . . . .” (Defendant’s Motion in Limine, No. 1, at p. 7.)
Jul 13, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Such rulings will await the appropriate Motions in Limine or other evidentiary objections and rulings.
Jul 13, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Bradford’s motions in limine prevented his use at trial in both the 2016 and 2019 trial. This deposition was reasonably necessary and is recoverable. Texas Deposition Travel Expenses: The memorandum of costs includes expenses incurred in taking the deposition of Willie Norfleet, which took place in Texas. Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a)(3)(C) includes deposition travel expenses as recoverable. “Travel expenses” includes lodging (Thon v. Thompson (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1548–1549), and Ms.
Jul 13, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
., 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’).”
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Jul 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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.)
Jul 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Jul 08, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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 to Strike
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Jul 01, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
preparation and argument of the Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Lisa Hankin, filing and pursuit of a cross-action for indemnity (mooted by the summary judgment decision) against cross-defendants associated with Far West Farms and coordination of a defense against plaintiffs’ claims with those cross-defendants, retention of and consultation with defense experts on veterinary medicine and the valuation of horses, and all of the activities attendant to preparing the case for trial, including motions in limine
Jun 29, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jun 29, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Jun 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
preparation and argument of the Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Lisa Hankin, filing and pursuit of a cross-action for indemnity (mooted by the summary judgment decision) against cross-defendants associated with Far West Farms and coordination of a defense against plaintiffs’ claims with those cross-defendants, retention of and consultation with defense experts on veterinary medicine and the valuation of horses, and all of the activities attendant to preparing the case for trial, including motions in limine
Jun 29, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jun 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
At the March 9, 2020 hearing on the motions in limine, this Court granted Windsor Motion in Limine # 6, finding that if Mr. Matkins is going to be a witness, the Moller defendants needed to get new trial counsel, and the court would give them 30 days to do that. If they were willing to withdraw Mr. Matkins as a witness, obtaining new counsel would not be necessary.
Jun 26, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
Jun 26, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jun 26, 2020
Orange County, CA
(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.
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jun 25, 2020
Real Property
other
San Diego County, CA
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.
Jun 24, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jun 24, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
., 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.
Jun 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
