What is a Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to?

There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to exclude reference to" is an issue. e.g.,

  • tax information
  • potentially prejudicial issues during voir dire
  • settlements or settlement discussions
  • insurance coverage
  • past criminal conduct
  • wealth or poverty of parties
  • personal injury litigation
  • prior counsel, or change in counsel
  • documents not produced at deposition
  • California Workers' Compensation benefits or whether Plaintiff is entitled to receive such benefits
  • attorneys’ fees
  • increased cost of vehicles

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude Reference to

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude Reference to

WILLIAM BOYD CROOKSHANKS, ET AL. VS SERGEY DERMENDZHYAN, ET AL.

Therefore, the Court believes the appropriate course of action is to order its production and allow Defendants to move in limine to exclude this evidence. Second, it is unclear whether any of this evidence may be relevant for purposes of impeachment. Defendant’s counsel has represented that his client does not intend to testify at trial, but no formal waiver has been taken on-the-record.

  • Hearing

FARNAZ VOJDANI ET AL VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL

The denial of this motion is without prejudice to bringing it again after the matter has been assigned out to trial as a motion in limine. Defendants are ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

ORDER Plaintiff Chuckrid Hutayana's Motion for Terminating Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on November 25, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWING BEFORE AS A REGULARLY NOTICED MOTION OR AT THE INCEPTION OF TRIAL AS A PROPERLY NOTICED MOTION IN LIMINE. DATE: _______________ _______________________________ JUDGE

  • Hearing

MITRA KOHANOF VS 26 MOORPARK LLC ET AL.,

JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE KOHANOF V 26 MOORPARK

  • Hearing

NOYEMI KAROYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

trial because their case management statement provided that (1) “[t]his case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint;” 2) the "length of trial" will be "3-5" days; (3) Defendants would be represented "at trial" by Wolfe & Wyman; (4) Defendants did not check the box indicating an interest in "binding private arbitration;” (5) Defendants checked the box for "mediation," and for a "settlement conference;” and (6) Defendants stated their intention to file "Motions in Limine

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

INTELLISOFT, LTD. V. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Tellingly, in the spring of 2017, defendants themselves raised issues concerning the applicability of patent law concepts to this case and the introduction of patent- related evidence at trial through a motion in limine, which this Court (Judge Walsh) denied. Considering these circumstances, defendants’ delay in seeking to file their proposed cross- complaint was not justified. In addition, the proposed cross-complaint is demurrable.

  • Hearing

DAVID TRUE VS LAYTON CAPITAL CORP ET AL

Defendants’ Motions in Limine – Defendants did not include any reply briefs to the motions in limine. Defendants shall include the reply brief behind the respective opposition, separated by colored paper, or shall prepare a page stating that no reply brief was filed. 6. Jury Instructions – There is no joint list of jury instructions signed by both parties.

  • Hearing

LYNN VS THE GEO GROUP INC

It is too early in the case to grant what amounts to a motion in limine to exclude uncharged misconduct. Moreover, the court has discretion to grant or deny a motion to strike and, even where an allegation may be unwarranted, the court is not required to strike the allegation at the pleading stage and may instead simply deny the request on the merits at a later stage of the case or ignore the allegation. See Colden v. Broadway State Bank (1936) 11 Cal.App.2d 428, 429.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KEITH M FROMM VS WELLS FARGO BANK N A ET AL

In Kerner, the trial court granted a motion in limine excluding evidence or argument that the plaintiff had committed domestic violence against his wife, based on findings made by a family law court. (Id. at p. 108.) The plaintiff had argued that the findings made by the family law court were binding on the defendants in his case because the defendants were the wife’s attorneys in the family law matter. (Id. at pp. 107-108.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

NEEBLE-DIAMOND V. HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC

A motion in limine may be brought at the time of trial to address evidentiary issues raised by the evidence discovered. Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

TINA CHAPMAN VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANS, INC, ET AL.

As noted by the arbitrator in ruling on the subject motions in limine,” [i]t seems that inasmuch as Claimant recognized the importance of getting the agreement of Respondent to add Dr. Whitaker, she should have done the same for Dr. Watanabe, inasmuch as she has been treating the Claimant since 2017.” (Kjar Decl. Exh. G, 3:7-9.)

  • Hearing

RAUL DIAZ ET AL. VS FCA US LLC

Although this case eventually settled, the jury trial began with hearings on the twenty-one motions in limine initially filed. Evidentiary hearings regarding expert testimony pursuant to Evidence Code section 402 were about to begin. Plaintiffs have provided time sheets reflecting the time they spent on this litigation, broken down by specific task.

  • Hearing

ASTRID G NELSON MEGEL ET AL VS THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

If plaintiffs have any doubt about Baratto’s intent, they can bring a motion in limine. The court finds no ground to strike Baratto’s answer or to impose any terminating, evidentiary, or issue sanction. 3. Order: The court denies plaintiffs Astrid G. Nelson Megel and Clifford Nelson’s motion to strike defendant Insurance Matters Solutions & Financial Services, Inc.’s answer and for evidence, issue, and/or terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LISA STERN VS DOUGLAS EMMETT 2014 LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

If Defendant has objections to the admissibility of certain answers at trial, Defendant may a file a motion in limine, which the trial judge will rule on. The court imposes sanctions of $860.00 against Defendant ABM and its counsel, Dummit, Buchholz & Trap, jointly and severally, for the failing to proceed with an authorized method of discovery which constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d), 2023.030.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HEU V. NEUSCHMID, ET AL.

(See Tentative Ruling on Seeno Motion in Limine No. 2.) If evidence of Seeno’s gross defense costs is introduced without allocation between the various parties and DeSilva Gates, it could result in prejudice to DeSilva Gates. DeSilva Gates Motion in Limine No. 3: to exclude evidence of settlement payments to plaintiffs. Granted.

  • Hearing

EST. OF GAONA V. SALINAS

Further questioning the deponents on these topics is not authorized and any such questions are subject to an objection similar to an objection made during trial regarding violation of a motion in limine order. On another issue pertinent to pertinent further proceedings in the now remanded back to state court case, the pleadings need to be amended to comport with procedural requirements with respect to the named plaintiff party, “The Estate of Javier Garcia Gaona Jr.”

  • Hearing

WILLIAM SUGGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ELLIOT SUGGS VS BONNIE PATRICIA MORGAN , ET AL.

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice to raising this issue in the form of a motion in limine before the trial court. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel is denied. Plaintiff’s counsel created his own problem: He should have listed the client’s name correctly in the complaint or otherwise disclosed the identity of his client.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SULLIVAN VS. KIM

Rather, the solution is let the trial judge do his or her job by making rulings in limine on the nature and scope of the evidence to be introduced at the trial.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FARNAZ VOJDANI ET AL VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL

The parties are advised that, while trial dates in preference cases are firm, sanctions and motions in limine can be used to exclude evidence if the parties do not participate timely in the discovery process. As to the Defendants’ argument that Vojdani’s claims should be severed, Vojdani’s and Azizgolshani’s claims arise from the same accident in which Azizgolshani was a passenger in Vojdani’s car.

  • Hearing

WILLIAM SUGGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ELLIOT SUGGS VS BONNIE PATRICIA MORGAN , ET AL.

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice to raising this issue in the form of a motion in limine before the trial court. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel is denied. Plaintiff’s counsel created his own problem: He should have listed the client’s name correctly in the complaint or otherwise disclosed the identity of his client.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TANIA ESTRADA VS MICHAEL PRIEBE

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel that a motion for limine would be filed to exclude testimony from the Doctors. (Kirschen Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Defendant did not bring this motion sooner because Defendant anticipated Plaintiff’s motion in limine to address the dispute of whether the Doctors would be able to testify at trial. (Kirschen Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff did not bring this anticipated motion in limine and, thus, Defendant filed this motion. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

GREEN VS CONTRA COSTA HOUSING

The Court notes, however, that it does not appear that either side has filed motions in limine, proposed instructions, a statement of the case, or any of the other papers usually expected at the start of trial. The Court further points out that while civil departments are open for trials (including jury trials), the attorneys may not be conversant with the limitations imposed by COVID-19, which will have the effect of greatly extending the time that will be required for jury selection.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL LE VS ALAIN MONTOYA ARBOLEDA, ET AL.

The request is premature and should be made to the trial judge at the time motions in limine are heard. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the answer are not appropriately made in opposition to a motion to intervene. Any challenges to the pleading may be made within 30 days of notice of this order. (See Code Civil Procedure § 387, subd. (f).). Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. TWIST BIOSCIENCE CORP., ET AL.

In a motion filed on February 18, 2020, Twist, Leproust, and Chen move to seal documents lodged in connection with the parties’ motions in limine, motions to strike, and motion for spoliation sanction, which the Court did not ultimately hear.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 90     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.