Preview
No. 2016-62142
S. EMANUEL LIN
Plaintiff IN THE 269TH
DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS
ESTATE OF KENNETH COUNTY OF HARRIS
JAMES WILCHENSKI, Hon. Dan Hinde
ROBERT FLOYD SUE
TRUCKING, INC.,
DOES 1 ~10
Defendants
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST-AMENDED
MOTION IN LIMINE
To the Honorable Court:
Plaintiff S. EMANUEL LIN moves the Court to prevent fol-
lowing matters during the trial:
Plaintiff’s Financial Condition
Example of such evidence is Plaintiff’s deposit of $57,000
into his joint account with his wife at Wells Fargo Bank below:
1 Plaintiff’s -Amended Motions in Limine
1 Plaintiff had demanded on December 14, 2017 the return of
2 subject privileged material in his Second-Amended Response to De-
3 fendants’ First Requests for Production.
4 However, Defendants continued to introduce the privileged
5 transaction receipt in their various motions in violation of Texas
6 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 193.4.
7 Second example of Plaintiff’s financial condition to exclude
8 is Plaintiff’s verified statement of his real estate business from
9 his personal time that has grown to an estimated of $2,000,000.
10 Defendants should be barred from presenting, stating or
11 implying a specific act or inaction to Plaintiff’s financial posses-
12 sion, or the lack thereof, as a mere mention of Plaintiff’s financial
13 condition at trial would be prejudicial and unfair.
14 II. Plaintiff’s Other Civil Actions.
15
16 Plaintiff prays the Court bar Defendants present any record,
17 discovery requests and response, document, or statement per-
18 taining to his civil lawsuit in any other jurisdiction than the one
2 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine
1 pending before the Court.
2 They are irrelevant and a mere mention of them at the trial
3 would be prejudicial as it would negatively impress upon the jury
4 as to Plaintiff’s character.
5 Specifically, it pertains to Plaintiff’s civil action in 2009 and
6 its appeal in S. Emanuel Lin v. Chicago Title Insurance Company be-
7 fore U.S. District Court, Central District of California (CV09-7993
8 ), before Riverside Superior Court (RIC1411077) against City of
9 Perris who granted a conditional use permit on February 20,
10 2013, leased its vacant land on November 7, 2013 to and allowed
11 Mr. Matthew Johnson to develop and operate a private gun range
12 without a Certificate of Occupancy and City’s Business License
13 since November 8, 2014 while blocking Plaintiff’s access to his
14 adjoining property at 23886 Bellamo Lane, Perris, CA.
15 Specifically, the case against City of Perris, et al involves
16 causes of action completely different from those in the pending
17 action in Harris County.
3 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine
1 For example, the operating Plaintiff’s First Amended Com-
2 plaint, including a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP
3 §1085) & Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Reliefs filed on
4 April 1, 2015 alleged the following:
5 First Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson,
6 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s illegal construction of
7 covered pistol range and bathroom without required
8 setbacks and landscaping; Forsaking the law in its
9 own book, City knowingly teamed up with them.
10 Third Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson,
11 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s failure to implement
12 measures upon which a Mitigated Negative Declara-
13 tion on noise was made as Conditions of Approval; In-
14 difference to the resulting negative impact to the en-
15 vironment, City illegally issued the occupancy permit.
16 Ninth Cause of Action - Lin’s petition for injunctive re-
17 lief to cease the operation of subject outdoor gun
18 range.
19 Tenth Cause of Action - Defendants City of Perris, Mat-
20 thew Johnson, WSRP, LLC, WRSP, LLC’s violation of
21 Lin’s property rights under the Constitution of State of
22 California.
23 Plaintiff’s related action (RIC1500781) is against Common-
24 wealth Land Title Insurance Company for the defect in the title
25 of the subject blocked property at 23886 Bellamo Lane.
4 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine
1 III. Defendants’ Affirmative Defense.
2
3 In light of Defendants’ failure to file a response to operating
4 Plaintiff’s Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017,
5 Plaintiff prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or im-
6 ply any affirmative defense they might have. (See Gardner v. U.S.
7 Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669, 671 (Tex. 2008))
8 Examples of such affirmative defense are:
9 ï‚· Failure to mitigate damages in seeking immediate treat-
10 ment or in timely obtaining a replacement vehicle de-
11 spite Plaintiff’s financial condition.
12  Comparative fault, such as Plaintiff’s failure to control
13 his speed, failing to yield the right-of-way, changing
14 lanes when unsafe, driving erratically, and driving in
15 such a way as to impede the normal and reasonable
16 movement of traffic.
17 IV. Defendants’ Admissions to Petition
18
5 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine
1 In light of Defendants’ failure to deny operating Plaintiff’s
2 Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017, Plaintiff
3 prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or imply any
4 denial, non-admission or challenge to all facts properly pleaded
5 in plaintiff’s petition, specifically the cause and the sequence of
6 subject accident. (See Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669,
7 671 (Tex. 2008)).
8
9 Dated: Friday May 11, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin
10 3527 Woodvalley Dr.
11 Houston, TX 77025-4232
12 (713) 858-2462
13 LinEmanuel@gmail.com
14 Proof of Electronic Service
15
16 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of
17 the State of Texas that on Friday May 11, 2018 I served an elec-
18 tronic copy of Plaintiff’s First-Amended Motion in Limine upon the
19 following via eFileTexas, the Court’s electronic filing manager,
20 pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21(f)(3):
21 ï‚· Mr. David Helmey, attorney for Defendants Estate
22 of Kenneth James Wilchenski and Robert Floyd Sue
23 Trucking, Inc. at david@fuentesfirm.com.
24
25 Dated: Friday May 11, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin
6 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine
Preview
No. 2016-62142 S. EMANUEL LIN Plaintiff IN THE 269TH DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS ESTATE OF KENNETH COUNTY OF HARRIS JAMES WILCHENSKI, Hon. Dan Hinde ROBERT FLOYD SUE TRUCKING, INC., DOES 1 ~10 Defendants PLAINTIFF’S FIRST-AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE To the Honorable Court: Plaintiff S. EMANUEL LIN moves the Court to prevent fol- lowing matters during the trial: Plaintiff’s Financial Condition Example of such evidence is Plaintiff’s deposit of $57,000 into his joint account with his wife at Wells Fargo Bank below: 1 Plaintiff’s -Amended Motions in Limine 1 Plaintiff had demanded on December 14, 2017 the return of 2 subject privileged material in his Second-Amended Response to De- 3 fendants’ First Requests for Production. 4 However, Defendants continued to introduce the privileged 5 transaction receipt in their various motions in violation of Texas 6 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 193.4. 7 Second example of Plaintiff’s financial condition to exclude 8 is Plaintiff’s verified statement of his real estate business from 9 his personal time that has grown to an estimated of $2,000,000. 10 Defendants should be barred from presenting, stating or 11 implying a specific act or inaction to Plaintiff’s financial posses- 12 sion, or the lack thereof, as a mere mention of Plaintiff’s financial 13 condition at trial would be prejudicial and unfair. 14 II. Plaintiff’s Other Civil Actions. 15 16 Plaintiff prays the Court bar Defendants present any record, 17 discovery requests and response, document, or statement per- 18 taining to his civil lawsuit in any other jurisdiction than the one 2 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine 1 pending before the Court. 2 They are irrelevant and a mere mention of them at the trial 3 would be prejudicial as it would negatively impress upon the jury 4 as to Plaintiff’s character. 5 Specifically, it pertains to Plaintiff’s civil action in 2009 and 6 its appeal in S. Emanuel Lin v. Chicago Title Insurance Company be- 7 fore U.S. District Court, Central District of California (CV09-7993 8 ), before Riverside Superior Court (RIC1411077) against City of 9 Perris who granted a conditional use permit on February 20, 10 2013, leased its vacant land on November 7, 2013 to and allowed 11 Mr. Matthew Johnson to develop and operate a private gun range 12 without a Certificate of Occupancy and City’s Business License 13 since November 8, 2014 while blocking Plaintiff’s access to his 14 adjoining property at 23886 Bellamo Lane, Perris, CA. 15 Specifically, the case against City of Perris, et al involves 16 causes of action completely different from those in the pending 17 action in Harris County. 3 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine 1 For example, the operating Plaintiff’s First Amended Com- 2 plaint, including a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP 3 §1085) & Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Reliefs filed on 4 April 1, 2015 alleged the following: 5 First Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson, 6 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s illegal construction of 7 covered pistol range and bathroom without required 8 setbacks and landscaping; Forsaking the law in its 9 own book, City knowingly teamed up with them. 10 Third Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson, 11 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s failure to implement 12 measures upon which a Mitigated Negative Declara- 13 tion on noise was made as Conditions of Approval; In- 14 difference to the resulting negative impact to the en- 15 vironment, City illegally issued the occupancy permit. 16 Ninth Cause of Action - Lin’s petition for injunctive re- 17 lief to cease the operation of subject outdoor gun 18 range. 19 Tenth Cause of Action - Defendants City of Perris, Mat- 20 thew Johnson, WSRP, LLC, WRSP, LLC’s violation of 21 Lin’s property rights under the Constitution of State of 22 California. 23 Plaintiff’s related action (RIC1500781) is against Common- 24 wealth Land Title Insurance Company for the defect in the title 25 of the subject blocked property at 23886 Bellamo Lane. 4 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine 1 III. Defendants’ Affirmative Defense. 2 3 In light of Defendants’ failure to file a response to operating 4 Plaintiff’s Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017, 5 Plaintiff prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or im- 6 ply any affirmative defense they might have. (See Gardner v. U.S. 7 Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669, 671 (Tex. 2008)) 8 Examples of such affirmative defense are: 9  Failure to mitigate damages in seeking immediate treat- 10 ment or in timely obtaining a replacement vehicle de- 11 spite Plaintiff’s financial condition. 12  Comparative fault, such as Plaintiff’s failure to control 13 his speed, failing to yield the right-of-way, changing 14 lanes when unsafe, driving erratically, and driving in 15 such a way as to impede the normal and reasonable 16 movement of traffic. 17 IV. Defendants’ Admissions to Petition 18 5 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine 1 In light of Defendants’ failure to deny operating Plaintiff’s 2 Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017, Plaintiff 3 prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or imply any 4 denial, non-admission or challenge to all facts properly pleaded 5 in plaintiff’s petition, specifically the cause and the sequence of 6 subject accident. (See Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669, 7 671 (Tex. 2008)). 8 9 Dated: Friday May 11, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin 10 3527 Woodvalley Dr. 11 Houston, TX 77025-4232 12 (713) 858-2462 13 LinEmanuel@gmail.com 14 Proof of Electronic Service 15 16 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of 17 the State of Texas that on Friday May 11, 2018 I served an elec- 18 tronic copy of Plaintiff’s First-Amended Motion in Limine upon the 19 following via eFileTexas, the Court’s electronic filing manager, 20 pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21(f)(3): 21  Mr. David Helmey, attorney for Defendants Estate 22 of Kenneth James Wilchenski and Robert Floyd Sue 23 Trucking, Inc. at david@fuentesfirm.com. 24 25 Dated: Friday May 11, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin 6 Plaintiff’s 1st-Amended Motion in Limine