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 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 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 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 Riverside
6 Superior Court (RIC1411077) against City of Perris who granted
7 a conditional use permit on February 20, 2013, leased its vacant
8 land on November 7, 2013 to and allowed Mr. Matthew Johnson
9 to develop and operate a private gun range without a Certificate
10 of Occupancy and City’s Business License since November 8,
11 2014 while blocking Plaintiff’s access to his adjoining property at
12 23886 Bellamo Lane, Perris, CA.
13 Specifically, the case against City of Perris, et al involves
14 causes of action completely different from those in the pending
15 action in Harris County.
16 For example, the operating Plaintiff’s First Amended Com-
17 plaint, including a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP
3 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
1 §1085) & Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Reliefs filed on
2 April 1, 2015 alleged the following:
3 First Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson,
4 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s illegal construction of
5 covered pistol range and bathroom without required
6 setbacks and landscaping; Forsaking the law in its
7 own book, City knowingly teamed up with them.
8 Third Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson,
9 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s failure to implement
10 measures upon which a Mitigated Negative Declara-
11 tion on noise was made as Conditions of Approval; In-
12 difference to the resulting negative impact to the en-
13 vironment, City illegally issued the occupancy permit.
14 Ninth Cause of Action - Lin’s petition for injunctive re-
15 lief to cease the operation of subject outdoor gun
16 range.
17 Tenth Cause of Action - Defendants City of Perris, Mat-
18 thew Johnson, WSRP, LLC, WRSP, LLC’s violation of
19 Lin’s property rights under the Constitution of State of
20 California.
21 Plaintiff’s related action (RIC1500781) is against Common-
22 wealth Land Title Insurance Company for the defect in the title
23 of the subject blocked property at 23886 Bellamo Lane.
24 III. Defendants’ Affirmative Defense.
25
26 In light of Defendants’ failure to file a response to operating
4 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
1 Plaintiff’s Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017,
2 Plaintiff prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or im-
3 ply any affirmative defense they might have. (See Gardner v. U.S.
4 Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669, 671 (Tex. 2008))
5 Examples of such affirmative defense are:
6 ï‚· Failure to mitigate damages in seeking immediate treat-
7 ment or in timely obtaining a replacement vehicle de-
8 spite Plaintiff’s financial condition.
9  Comparative fault, such as Plaintiff’s failure to control
10 his speed, failing to yield the right-of-way, changing
11 lanes when unsafe, driving erratically, and driving in
12 such a way as to impede the normal and reasonable
13 movement of traffic.
14 IV. Defendants’ Admissions to Petition
15
16 In light of Defendants’ failure to deny operating Plaintiff’s
17 Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017, Plaintiff
18 prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or imply any
5 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
1 denial, non-admission or challenge to all facts properly pleaded
2 in plaintiff’s petition, especifically the cause and the sequence of
3 subject accident. (See Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669,
4 671 (Tex. 2008)).
5
6 Dated: Friday March 9, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin
7 3527 Woodvalley Dr.
8 Houston, TX 77025-4232
9 (713) 858-2462
10 LinEmanuel@gmail.com
11 Proof of Electronic Service
12
13 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of
14 the State of Texas that on Friday March 9, 2018 I served an elec-
15 tronic copy of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine upon the following via
16 eFileTexas, the Court’s electronic filing manager, pursuant to
17 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21(f)(3):
18 ï‚· Mr. David Helmey, attorney for Defendants Estate
19 of Kenneth James Wilchenski and Robert Floyd Sue
20 Trucking, Inc. at david@fuentesfirm.com.
21
22 Dated: Friday March 9, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin
6 Plaintiff’s 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 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 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 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 Riverside 6 Superior Court (RIC1411077) against City of Perris who granted 7 a conditional use permit on February 20, 2013, leased its vacant 8 land on November 7, 2013 to and allowed Mr. Matthew Johnson 9 to develop and operate a private gun range without a Certificate 10 of Occupancy and City’s Business License since November 8, 11 2014 while blocking Plaintiff’s access to his adjoining property at 12 23886 Bellamo Lane, Perris, CA. 13 Specifically, the case against City of Perris, et al involves 14 causes of action completely different from those in the pending 15 action in Harris County. 16 For example, the operating Plaintiff’s First Amended Com- 17 plaint, including a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP 3 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1 §1085) & Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Reliefs filed on 2 April 1, 2015 alleged the following: 3 First Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson, 4 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s illegal construction of 5 covered pistol range and bathroom without required 6 setbacks and landscaping; Forsaking the law in its 7 own book, City knowingly teamed up with them. 8 Third Cause of Action - Defendants Matthew Johnson, 9 WSRP, LLC and WRSP, LLC’s failure to implement 10 measures upon which a Mitigated Negative Declara- 11 tion on noise was made as Conditions of Approval; In- 12 difference to the resulting negative impact to the en- 13 vironment, City illegally issued the occupancy permit. 14 Ninth Cause of Action - Lin’s petition for injunctive re- 15 lief to cease the operation of subject outdoor gun 16 range. 17 Tenth Cause of Action - Defendants City of Perris, Mat- 18 thew Johnson, WSRP, LLC, WRSP, LLC’s violation of 19 Lin’s property rights under the Constitution of State of 20 California. 21 Plaintiff’s related action (RIC1500781) is against Common- 22 wealth Land Title Insurance Company for the defect in the title 23 of the subject blocked property at 23886 Bellamo Lane. 24 III. Defendants’ Affirmative Defense. 25 26 In light of Defendants’ failure to file a response to operating 4 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1 Plaintiff’s Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017, 2 Plaintiff prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or im- 3 ply any affirmative defense they might have. (See Gardner v. U.S. 4 Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669, 671 (Tex. 2008)) 5 Examples of such affirmative defense are: 6  Failure to mitigate damages in seeking immediate treat- 7 ment or in timely obtaining a replacement vehicle de- 8 spite Plaintiff’s financial condition. 9  Comparative fault, such as Plaintiff’s failure to control 10 his speed, failing to yield the right-of-way, changing 11 lanes when unsafe, driving erratically, and driving in 12 such a way as to impede the normal and reasonable 13 movement of traffic. 14 IV. Defendants’ Admissions to Petition 15 16 In light of Defendants’ failure to deny operating Plaintiff’s 17 Verified Second-Amended Petition of August 31, 2017, Plaintiff 18 prays the Court bar Defendants present, mention or imply any 5 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1 denial, non-admission or challenge to all facts properly pleaded 2 in plaintiff’s petition, especifically the cause and the sequence of 3 subject accident. (See Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, 274 S.W.3d 669, 4 671 (Tex. 2008)). 5 6 Dated: Friday March 9, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin 7 3527 Woodvalley Dr. 8 Houston, TX 77025-4232 9 (713) 858-2462 10 LinEmanuel@gmail.com 11 Proof of Electronic Service 12 13 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of 14 the State of Texas that on Friday March 9, 2018 I served an elec- 15 tronic copy of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine upon the following via 16 eFileTexas, the Court’s electronic filing manager, pursuant to 17 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21(f)(3): 18  Mr. David Helmey, attorney for Defendants Estate 19 of Kenneth James Wilchenski and Robert Floyd Sue 20 Trucking, Inc. at david@fuentesfirm.com. 21 22 Dated: Friday March 9, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin 6 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine