City of Sacramento v. Patching – Case No, 06AS03584 – Motions in Limine Tentative Rulings
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude reference to the Opticom system
The motion is denied.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude any reference to the fact that the vehicle driven by Chief Bassett was equipped an Opticom system that could be used to change the color of traffic signals if the vehicle...
..ve value is substantially outweighed by the substantial danger of undue prejudice.
Defendant contends that liability is disputed in this case with the main issue being which vehicle had the green light. Defendant contends the fact that one vehicle had the ability to change the light sequence is relevant and plaintiff contentions go to weight not admissibility.
Defendant is persuasive. The eviden...
Tentative Rulings
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to preclude negative references to personal injury litigation
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
2. Motion to preclude negative references to contingency fee attorneys
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
3. Motion to exclude reference to settlements
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
4. Motion to...
..7. Motion to exclude reference to dismissed defendant or availability of uninsured motorist coverage
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
8. Motion to admit evidence of defendant's insurance coverage
The motion is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that evidence of insurance is generally not admissible. However, plaintiffs contend the evidence should be admitted here...
Motions in Limine – Tentative RulingDefendants' Motions in Limine1. Omnibus Motion(a) Motion to exclude reference to settlementsThe motion is granted as to settlement discussions and offers in this case. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion with this limitation. This ruling does not mean that plaintiff cannot produce evidence of settlement discussions with Nelmar Construction in the underlying cas...
..ejudice.Defendants seek to exclude evidence of any prior lawsuits brought against defendants or evidence of other alleged dissatisfie...
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...
Motions In Limine
Plaintiff's Motions:
1. Motion to exclude collateral source benefits
This motion is granted in part, and reserved in part, as set forth below.
The parties' positions are somewhat confused on collateral source benefits, Plaintiff's ability to present all of her medical bills, and the procedure for ensuring that Plaintiff receives only the reasonable value of her past speci...
..received under the TCU collective bargaining agreement are collateral to Drummac, but impliedly not Amtrak. On this basis, Plaintiff requests an order precluding Defendants "from offering any evidence or argument that Plaintiff has received collateral source benefits." Plaintiff also states that "[a]ny offset to which Amtrak is entitled can be addressed through a post-trial motion."
Defendants ha...
PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS CHART [TENTATIVE RULINGS]
CASTRO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY BC625321
NO.
MOTION/TENTATIVE RULINGS
P1
(TO EXCLUDE NON-PARTY WITNESSES FROM THE COURTROOM PRIOR TO THEIR TESTIMONY)
SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFFS:
Plaintiffs submit that all non-party witnesses as well as non-retained expert witnesses be excluded from the courtroom prior to their testimony in order to pre...
..GUMENTS
PLAINTIFFS: Any reference to attorneys’ fees should be prohibited at trial because they are not relevant to any causes of action in the complaint or the answers in the defense. Moreover, their de minimis probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial affect.
DEFENDANT OPPOSITION: Defendant has no intention of arguing or introducing evidence relating to plaintiffs’ attor...
CM-110
"ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Bar number, and address): FOR GOURT USE ONLY
Dominique A. Pollara SBN 041036 / Nicole I. Whatley SBN: 293220
POLLARA LAW GROUP FF __Superior Court of California F
100 Howe Ave, Suite 165N County of Butte
SACRAMENTO, California 95825 | |
TELEPHONE NO.: (916) 550-5880 FAXNO, (Optionay:(916) 550-5066 L L
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Options): [email protected] E E
ATTORNEY FOR (Namey: Defendant Miguel Puig-Palomar, MD
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF YOLO
Case Management Minute Order
HON: HONORABLE SAMUEL T. MCADAM TIME: 9:00 AM
DATE: 02/01/2021 CASE NO: CV-2020-34
TITLE: WEAVER VS. JACKSON
PROCEEDINGS: *ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Le: Sanctions
CLERK: Websfe-
APPEARANCES - 77a. ZoOoWwe
Plaintiff presets
wiBy Atty_J - Arvold A Sith fac (CC +) «SO Wey Atty. (CC__)
Defendant present
WIBy Atty > Hunter (cc__) [Wy Atty (CC. )
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE COURT HAS DETERMINED AND ORDERED THE FOLL
Eric V. Grijaiva, No.
B. F.
10, 2021 1:30 p.m.
(if different from the
3 Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name): Eric V. Grijaiva
INSTRUCTIONS: All
a. 3 This statement is Defendant, Ashley
b. • Thisstatement is jointly by parties
CM-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Raquel Busani, SBN 323162 Robert J. Rosati, SBN 112006
ERISA Law Center
6485 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 105, Fres
CM-110
‘ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
(Adam Sorrells, SBN 160226
Law Office of Adam Sorrells
60 Independence Circle, Suite 100, Chico, CA 95973
TELEPHONE NO.:(530) 893-9900 FAXNO. (Optional:(530) 893-9901
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): €8q27 @comcast.net E
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):Plaintiff, Christina Moody _ \q D
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFBUTTE Kifhoesty Righter Clerk
street aporess: 1775 Concord Avenue By ___C/* —" __ Deput
CM-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Bar number, and address) FOR GOURT USE ONLY
Brian Michael Pratt (Bar #289429)
The Law Offices of Max G. Arnold, Inc.
20 Constitution Dr., Ste. A F Superior Court of California F
Chico, CA 95973 | County of Butte |
TELEPHONE NO= ($30) 897-5020 FAX NO. (Optional: (530) 897-5030 L L
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
arronver Fon tine) Plaintiff David Huerta E E
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE D D
street aoress: 1775 Concord Ave
CM-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Adam Sorrells, SBN 160226
Law Office of Adam Sorrells IF _ Superior Court of California
60 Independence Circle, Suite 100, Chico, CA 95973 County of Butte
TeLePHone No.:(530) 893-9900 FAX NO, (Optional(530) 893-9901 | ¥ |
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optionay: €[email protected] comcast.net IL L
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):Plaintiff, Marvin Eric Root E
‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFBUTTE
rreer ores: 1775 Concord
CM-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) FOR COURT USE ONLY
Lindsay S. Fitch (SBN 238227) Phillip J. Ebsworth (SBN 311026)
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
TELEPHONE NO.: 916-448-015
CM-110
"ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate Bar number, and address) ‘FOR COURT USE ONLY
Nicholas Wagner #109455
WAGNER LAW GROUP
1111 East Herndon, Suite 317
Fresno, CA 93720
vevepHoneNo 559/449-1800 FAX NO (Optional)
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optonay [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR (Name) TAELRE R. MEJIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
streeraporess 1130 "O" St.
MAILING ADDRESS
civanpzpcope «Fresno, CA 93724
BRANCH NAME
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERTaelre R. Mejia
DE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF YOLO
Case Management Minute Order
HON: HONORABLE SAMUEL T. MCADAM TIME: 9:00 AM
DATE: 01/11/2021 CASE NO: CV-2019-84
TITLE: MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS IDLEMAN pye-Disposi Hour .
PROCEEDINGS: “ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE POStSbISPOLIHION LE ! SamcHions
CLERK: ( er
APPEARANCES “Va. 200.
aintiff resent
way ins (cc__) Dweyary Cd:
cr PHE)
Ol wes ZA for
CO wey Atty (cc__) CL] Wey Atty (cc. )
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE COURT HAS DETERMINED AND ORDERED THE FOL
CM-110
"ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Bar number, and address): FOR GOURT USE ONLY
Dominique A. Pollara SBN 041036 / Nicole I. Whatley SBN: 293220
POLLARA LAW GROUP FF __Superior Court of California F
100 Howe Ave, Suite 165N County of Butte
SACRAMENTO, California 95825 | |
TELEPHONE NO.: (916) 550-5880 FAXNO, (Optionay:(916) 550-5066 L L
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Options): [email protected] E E
ATTORNEY FOR (Namey: Defendant Miguel Puig-Palomar, MD
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORN
