Preview
27
28
Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878)
Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. (SBN 294424)
Jenny Jin, Esq. (SBN 296184)
Hooshmand Law Group
22 Battery St., Ste. 610
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 318-5709
Fax: (415) 376-5897
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/14/2017
Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Angelique Rochelle, individually
and as Guardian ad litem of Ella Lawton and Leona Paslay and
Baz Rochelle individually
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVL JURSIDICTION
ANGELIQUE ROCHELLE, individually
and as Guardian ad litem of ELLA
LAWTON and LEONA PASLAY and BAZ
ROCHELLE individually
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TREVOR DENG, MAY DENG, YU TAO
TAN and DOES 1 TO 10,
Defendants.
wee eee errr
CASENO.: CGC-16-555761
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO
EVIDENCE CODE § 352
Date: | November 13, 2017
Time: 9:30 am
Dept: 206
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 1To Defendants Trevor Deng, May Deng, and Yu Yao Tan, and Defendants’ counsel of
record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard in Department 206 of the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, Plaintiffs' motion in limine
no. 12 will be heard.
The Motion is based on the files in these matters and this Motion in Limine, and evidence
to be presented at the hearing of Plaintiffs’ motion.
Date: November 8, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP
Jenny Jin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 2I. INTRODUCTION
In the matter of Rochelle, et al. v. Deng, et al., CGC-16-555761, Plaintiffs move for an
order preventing Defendants, their attorneys from introducing prejudicial evidence that has no
probative value in this case.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are former tenants of a rent-controlled unit located at 778 25" Avenue, San
Francisco, California (“Subject Premises”). Plaintiff Angelique Rochelle moved into the Subject
Premises in November 2003, and had resided there with her three children, Plaintiffs Baz
Rochelle, Ella Lawton, and Leona Paslay, until July 2014. Defendants Trevor Deng and May
Deng purchased the building in or around July 2013, and moved into the upstairs unit of the
subject building shortly after.
On June 13, 2014, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a relative move-in (“RMI”) eviction,
and represented to Plaintiffs that Trevor Deng's mother, Defendant Tan, would be moving into the
Subject Premises. Based on this representation, Plaintiffs agreed to a move out date, and were
displaced from the Subject Premises in July 2014. Plaintiff Angelique Rochelle moved to a smaller
unit in Oakland, and as a result, was no longer able to live with all three of her children.
In late 2016, Plaintiff Rochelle discovered that Defendant Tan had not in fact moved into
the Subject Premises, and that Defendants had renovated and re-rented the Subject Premises for a
significantly higher rent amount.
Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT
California Evidence Code section 352 states that the “court in its discretion may exclude
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission
will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice,
of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Allowing evidence or argument on the issue
would prejudice the Plaintiffs as it may impose an emotional bias against them as individuals, but
the introduction of which would have very little effect on the issues. The court in People v. Rucker
(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107 held that the “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code section 352
applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against defendant as individ-
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 3uals and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying section 352, “prejudicial” is not syn-
onymous with “damaging.” (Id. at p. 1119.)
Here, Plaintiffs seek to exclude the following issues as they have little or no probative
value, are not relevant, and will serve only to create undue prejudice against the Plaintiffs or im-
proper sympathy for Defendants.
1.
Exclude why Defendants moved to 776 25" Avenue, ie. to raise a family, and live in a
larger unit. This has no bearing on the issues in the case, nor the claims. It is not disputed
that Defendants live at the subject property. Why they moved in therefore has no relevance
and will only create improper sympathy for the Defense.
Exclude mention that Plaintiffs may have sold any personal property belonging to the prior
owners. This has no bearing on the issues in the case, as this would have occurred before
Defendants bought the building, and Defendants are not making any claims for offset. Any
mention of this will thus only create irrelevant prejudice.
Exclude mention that Plaintiffs may have had disagreements with the residents or tenants
of 776 25" Avenue prior to Defendants’ purchase of the Subject Property. Similar to the
subject of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 9, whether Plaintiffs may have had disagreements
with others while living at the Subject Premises is irrelevant and not an issue in this case.
Exclude mention that Defendants attend church or have prayed for this case to resolve.
This has no bearing on the issues in the case, nor the claims. Allowing any mention of this
will only create improper sympathy for the Defense. It should therefore be excluded from
being referenced at trial.
Exclude all photos of Defendants’ family, including any in their unit or at the property. This
has no bearing on the claims in this case, as Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants and
their three children live at the subject property. Allowing any evidence of this type will
only create improper sympathy for the Defense. Therefore it should be excluded.
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 427
28
Each of the items above has little to no probative value and, if mentioned at trial, will only
serve to waste time, and create prejudice or improper sympathies against Plaintiffs. Therefore,
each of the above issues must be precluded.
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, Plaintiffs move for an order preventing
Defendants, their attorneys from introducing or making reference to each of the items listed in this
motion.
Dated: November 8, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,
HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP
Jenny Jin, EX
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 12 TO EXCLUDE
PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 5
Preview
27 28 Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878) Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. (SBN 294424) Jenny Jin, Esq. (SBN 296184) Hooshmand Law Group 22 Battery St., Ste. 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 318-5709 Fax: (415) 376-5897 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/14/2017 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs Angelique Rochelle, individually and as Guardian ad litem of Ella Lawton and Leona Paslay and Baz Rochelle individually SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVL JURSIDICTION ANGELIQUE ROCHELLE, individually and as Guardian ad litem of ELLA LAWTON and LEONA PASLAY and BAZ ROCHELLE individually Plaintiffs, vs. TREVOR DENG, MAY DENG, YU TAO TAN and DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants. wee eee errr CASENO.: CGC-16-555761 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 Date: | November 13, 2017 Time: 9:30 am Dept: 206 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 1To Defendants Trevor Deng, May Deng, and Yu Yao Tan, and Defendants’ counsel of record: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 206 of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 12 will be heard. The Motion is based on the files in these matters and this Motion in Limine, and evidence to be presented at the hearing of Plaintiffs’ motion. Date: November 8, 2017 Respectfully submitted, HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP Jenny Jin, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 2I. INTRODUCTION In the matter of Rochelle, et al. v. Deng, et al., CGC-16-555761, Plaintiffs move for an order preventing Defendants, their attorneys from introducing prejudicial evidence that has no probative value in this case. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs are former tenants of a rent-controlled unit located at 778 25" Avenue, San Francisco, California (“Subject Premises”). Plaintiff Angelique Rochelle moved into the Subject Premises in November 2003, and had resided there with her three children, Plaintiffs Baz Rochelle, Ella Lawton, and Leona Paslay, until July 2014. Defendants Trevor Deng and May Deng purchased the building in or around July 2013, and moved into the upstairs unit of the subject building shortly after. On June 13, 2014, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a relative move-in (“RMI”) eviction, and represented to Plaintiffs that Trevor Deng's mother, Defendant Tan, would be moving into the Subject Premises. Based on this representation, Plaintiffs agreed to a move out date, and were displaced from the Subject Premises in July 2014. Plaintiff Angelique Rochelle moved to a smaller unit in Oakland, and as a result, was no longer able to live with all three of her children. In late 2016, Plaintiff Rochelle discovered that Defendant Tan had not in fact moved into the Subject Premises, and that Defendants had renovated and re-rented the Subject Premises for a significantly higher rent amount. Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT California Evidence Code section 352 states that the “court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Allowing evidence or argument on the issue would prejudice the Plaintiffs as it may impose an emotional bias against them as individuals, but the introduction of which would have very little effect on the issues. The court in People v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107 held that the “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against defendant as individ- PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 3uals and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying section 352, “prejudicial” is not syn- onymous with “damaging.” (Id. at p. 1119.) Here, Plaintiffs seek to exclude the following issues as they have little or no probative value, are not relevant, and will serve only to create undue prejudice against the Plaintiffs or im- proper sympathy for Defendants. 1. Exclude why Defendants moved to 776 25" Avenue, ie. to raise a family, and live in a larger unit. This has no bearing on the issues in the case, nor the claims. It is not disputed that Defendants live at the subject property. Why they moved in therefore has no relevance and will only create improper sympathy for the Defense. Exclude mention that Plaintiffs may have sold any personal property belonging to the prior owners. This has no bearing on the issues in the case, as this would have occurred before Defendants bought the building, and Defendants are not making any claims for offset. Any mention of this will thus only create irrelevant prejudice. Exclude mention that Plaintiffs may have had disagreements with the residents or tenants of 776 25" Avenue prior to Defendants’ purchase of the Subject Property. Similar to the subject of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 9, whether Plaintiffs may have had disagreements with others while living at the Subject Premises is irrelevant and not an issue in this case. Exclude mention that Defendants attend church or have prayed for this case to resolve. This has no bearing on the issues in the case, nor the claims. Allowing any mention of this will only create improper sympathy for the Defense. It should therefore be excluded from being referenced at trial. Exclude all photos of Defendants’ family, including any in their unit or at the property. This has no bearing on the claims in this case, as Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants and their three children live at the subject property. Allowing any evidence of this type will only create improper sympathy for the Defense. Therefore it should be excluded. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 427 28 Each of the items above has little to no probative value and, if mentioned at trial, will only serve to waste time, and create prejudice or improper sympathies against Plaintiffs. Therefore, each of the above issues must be precluded. IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, Plaintiffs move for an order preventing Defendants, their attorneys from introducing or making reference to each of the items listed in this motion. Dated: November 8, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP Jenny Jin, EX Attorney for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 12 TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 352 5