Preview
OA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-04-2014 12:17 pm
Case Number: CUD-13-647165
Filing Date: Mar-04-2014 12:16
Filed by: JACQUELINE ALAMEDA
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04398484
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1625 P, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS. JACQUELINE
MARENCO et al
001004398484
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.J. MICHAEL PHELPS (#67135)
Law Offices of J. Michael Phelps San Francisco Cot i
P.O. Box 1457 , ounty Superior Court
Mill Valley, CA 94942-1457 MAR 94 7014
Telephone: (415) 433-3733 or (415) 569-4108 .
Facsimile: (855) 853-9921
Email: phelps@alumni.princeton.edu ey
“Dep; Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA- LIMITED JURISDICTION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
1625 P, a California Limited Liability No. CUD-13-647165
Company,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: TO
Plaintiff, EXCLUDE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF
v. ANY REFERENCE TO ANY “POWER OF
ATTORNEY” SIGNED BY EDLY WILLIAMS
JACQUELINE MARENCO; Does | to 10,
inclusive Trial Date: March 3, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants. Dept.: 501
Trial date: None set yet.
I. RELIEF SOUGHT: Plaintiff 1625 P, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby moves this Court for an Order in
Limine instructing Defendant and her attorneys not to refer to, interrogate any witness concerning,
mention, comment on, attempt to suggest to the jury, or utilize in any way and/or for any reason any
claim by Defendant Marenco that she or her mother Martina had any rights, power, or authority of any
kind after the death of Edly Williams based on any alleged power of attomey signed by him prior to his
death.
Il. LEGAL BASIS FOR MOTION IN LIMINE:
A. A Motion in Limine Is A Proper Means to Prevent Introduction of Improper Evidence.
It long has been established that California Courts have inherent power to promote the ends of
justice by precluding certain evidence. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co, vy. Superior Court (1988) 200
Cal.App.4" 272, 288, Although not expressly authorized by statute, a motion in limine long has been
recognized as a proper means for a trial court to use its inherent power to entertain and grant. Clemens
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE -l-
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER
OF ATTORNEY,Oo NO
vy. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal. App.3d 444, 451.
A limine motion is directed toward particular, specific items of evidence. Clemens v. American
Warranty Corp, supra, at 451. Limine motions are designed to prevent the prejudicial effect that may
result when an objection to evidence is sustained and the Court then has to instruct the jury to disregard
the evidence it already has heard. Dong v. Board of Trustees (1987) 191 Cal-App.3d 1752, 1584.
To avoid the necessity of “unringing the bell,” a motion in limine allows a party to obtain an order
excluding the evidence in advance on any ground which would have been sufficient for an objection
made during trial. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337.
B. The Court Should Refuse the Admission of Irrelevant Evidence.
California Evidence Code Section 350 expressly prohibits the introduction or use of irrelevant
evidence, stating that “no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” As defined in Evidence
Code Section 210, “relevant evidence” means evidence “having any tendency to prove or disprove any
disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” A Court has no discretion to
admit irrelevant evidence. People_v. Keating (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 172, 179-180. citing Fuentes v.
Tucker (1947) 41 Cal.2d 1,7.
II]. GROUNDS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT (EXCLUSION OF THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE):
A. Any Power of Attorney Was Revoked Automatically By the Death of Edly Williams. and
Thus _It_is Completely Irrelevant to Any Rights or Powers Possessed by Defendant
Marenco.
Under California law, any power of attorney which had been signed by a principal is revoked
automatically by the death of the principal, and after the death of the principal, the power of attorney is
of no further force or effect. California Probate Code Section 4152 states as follows:
4152. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), the authority of an attorney-in-fact under a power
of attorney is terminated by any of the following events:
(1) In accordance with the terms of the power of attorney.
(2) Extinction of the subject or fulfillment of the purpose of the power of attorney.
(3) Revocation of the attorney-in-fact's authority, as provided in Section 4153.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE -2-
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER
OF ATTORNEY(4) Death of the principal, except as to specific authority permitted by statute to be
exercised after the principal's death.
(5) Removal of the attorney-in-fact.
(6) Resignation of the attorney-in-fact.
(7) Incapacity of the attorney-in-fact, except that a temporary incapacity suspends
the attorney-in-fact's authority only during the period of the incapacity.
(8) Dissolution or annulment of the marriage of the attorney-in-fact and principal, as
provided in Section 4154,
(9) Death of the attorney-in-fact.
(b) An attorney-in-fact or third person who does not have notice of an event that
terminates the power of attorney or the authority of an attorney-in-fact is protected
from liability as provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 4300).
In the instant action, although Defendant Marenco apparently contends that her mother Martina
was the “attorney-in-fact” under a power of attorney signed by Edly Williams at some unspecified time
in the past, neither Defendant Marenco nor her mother Martina has a copy of any such alleged power of
attorney. In any event, even it they had the original or a copy thereof, any such power of attorney would
have been revoked automatically by Probate Code 4152. In other words, Edly Williams was legally
incapable of conveying to Defendant Marenco or her mother any rights or powers of any nature via any
such power of attorney which would still have any validity after his death. Thus, when Edly Williams
died, any power of attorney which he allegedly issued to Defendant Marenco or her mother Martina
died within him and was legally incapable of being used by either Defendant Marenco or her mother
Martina for any actions after his death. Thus, any such power of attorney is completely irrelevant to any
issue in the instant action and any power of attorney (or any mention of any such power of attorney)
should be excluded completely from evidence in the instant action.
B. Even If The Power of Attorney Were Relevant, Any Use or Mention of Any Such Power of
Attorney Should Be Excluded Under Evidence Code Section 352.
1. The Court Has Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence Via Evidence Code Section 352.
California Evidence Code Section 352 states in relevant part as follows:
“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, or confusing the issues, or of
misleading the jury.”
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE 3.
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER
OF ATTORNEYEvidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative if it poses an intolerable risk to the
fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome. People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4" 155,
204 n. 14; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4" 690, 724. In deciding whether or not to exclude evidence
under an Evidence Code Section 352 objection requires the trial judge to balance the probative value of
the proffered evidence against its potential for prejudice, undue consumption of time, and/or confusion
of the jury. Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 284, 291. A trial court has broad discretion in
deciding whether or not to admit or exclude evidence to which an objection has been raised under
Evidence Code Section 352. People v. Mullens 2004) 119 Cal.App.4° 648, 658.
2. Introduction of Evidence Pertaining to Any Alleged Power of Attorney Would Confuse
the Jury, Due to the Rather Complex Nature of the Law As Applied to These Facts,
As is clear from the discussion above in Section III-B, there is a complex interplay here
between the various legal principles involved and the facts of the instant action. We have the
impact of the death of Edly Williams in causing the termination of his tenancy and thus the
termination of any power of attorney signed by Edly Williams before his death [see the interplay
between Civil Code section 1934 and Miller & Desatnik Management Co. v. Bullock (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, 18.]. We have the intricacies of the date of revocation of the power of
attorney under Probate Code Section 4152 and its interrelationship with when Edly Williams
tenancy ended due to Civil Code Section 1934. There are just too many balls for the jury to juggle
and keep straight. Thus, the Court should exercise its discretion under Evidence Code Section 352
to exclude any and all evidence pertaining to any claim by Defendant Marenco that she or her mother
Martina had some purported right or power, including possibly some “right of possession” to
Apartment 414 as the result of any power of attorney issued before his death by Edly Williams.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the myriad of reasons discussed above, any and all evidence proffered in support of any
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE -4.
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER
OF ATTORNEYclaim by Defendant Marenco that she or her mother had some purported rights or powers after the death
of Edly Williams based on some alleged power of attorney issued by Edly Williams before his death.
Thus, any such power of attorney should be excluded, and Defendant and her attorneys should be
barred from mentioning, referring to, interrogating any witness concerning, commenting on, attempting
to suggest to the jury, or utilizing in any way and/or for any reason that she or her mother Martina had
some purported power or right, including any “right of possession” to Apartment 414 and/or any claim
by her that she had some “co-tenant” agreement with Edly Williams which provides any defense to
either cause of action in the instant lawsuit.
4 4 PLE, fl), >
/ MICHAEL PHELPS, Attorney ‘opine
Dated: March 3, 2014
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ~5-
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER
OF ATTORNEY
Preview
OA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-04-2014 12:17 pm Case Number: CUD-13-647165 Filing Date: Mar-04-2014 12:16 Filed by: JACQUELINE ALAMEDA Juke Box: 001 Image: 04398484 MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1625 P, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS. JACQUELINE MARENCO et al 001004398484 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.J. MICHAEL PHELPS (#67135) Law Offices of J. Michael Phelps San Francisco Cot i P.O. Box 1457 , ounty Superior Court Mill Valley, CA 94942-1457 MAR 94 7014 Telephone: (415) 433-3733 or (415) 569-4108 . Facsimile: (855) 853-9921 Email: phelps@alumni.princeton.edu ey “Dep; Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA- LIMITED JURISDICTION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1625 P, a California Limited Liability No. CUD-13-647165 Company, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: TO Plaintiff, EXCLUDE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF v. ANY REFERENCE TO ANY “POWER OF ATTORNEY” SIGNED BY EDLY WILLIAMS JACQUELINE MARENCO; Does | to 10, inclusive Trial Date: March 3, 2014 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants. Dept.: 501 Trial date: None set yet. I. RELIEF SOUGHT: Plaintiff 1625 P, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby moves this Court for an Order in Limine instructing Defendant and her attorneys not to refer to, interrogate any witness concerning, mention, comment on, attempt to suggest to the jury, or utilize in any way and/or for any reason any claim by Defendant Marenco that she or her mother Martina had any rights, power, or authority of any kind after the death of Edly Williams based on any alleged power of attomey signed by him prior to his death. Il. LEGAL BASIS FOR MOTION IN LIMINE: A. A Motion in Limine Is A Proper Means to Prevent Introduction of Improper Evidence. It long has been established that California Courts have inherent power to promote the ends of justice by precluding certain evidence. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co, vy. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.4" 272, 288, Although not expressly authorized by statute, a motion in limine long has been recognized as a proper means for a trial court to use its inherent power to entertain and grant. Clemens PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE -l- ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER OF ATTORNEY,Oo NO vy. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal. App.3d 444, 451. A limine motion is directed toward particular, specific items of evidence. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp, supra, at 451. Limine motions are designed to prevent the prejudicial effect that may result when an objection to evidence is sustained and the Court then has to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence it already has heard. Dong v. Board of Trustees (1987) 191 Cal-App.3d 1752, 1584. To avoid the necessity of “unringing the bell,” a motion in limine allows a party to obtain an order excluding the evidence in advance on any ground which would have been sufficient for an objection made during trial. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337. B. The Court Should Refuse the Admission of Irrelevant Evidence. California Evidence Code Section 350 expressly prohibits the introduction or use of irrelevant evidence, stating that “no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” As defined in Evidence Code Section 210, “relevant evidence” means evidence “having any tendency to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” A Court has no discretion to admit irrelevant evidence. People_v. Keating (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 172, 179-180. citing Fuentes v. Tucker (1947) 41 Cal.2d 1,7. II]. GROUNDS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT (EXCLUSION OF THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE): A. Any Power of Attorney Was Revoked Automatically By the Death of Edly Williams. and Thus _It_is Completely Irrelevant to Any Rights or Powers Possessed by Defendant Marenco. Under California law, any power of attorney which had been signed by a principal is revoked automatically by the death of the principal, and after the death of the principal, the power of attorney is of no further force or effect. California Probate Code Section 4152 states as follows: 4152. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), the authority of an attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney is terminated by any of the following events: (1) In accordance with the terms of the power of attorney. (2) Extinction of the subject or fulfillment of the purpose of the power of attorney. (3) Revocation of the attorney-in-fact's authority, as provided in Section 4153. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE -2- ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER OF ATTORNEY(4) Death of the principal, except as to specific authority permitted by statute to be exercised after the principal's death. (5) Removal of the attorney-in-fact. (6) Resignation of the attorney-in-fact. (7) Incapacity of the attorney-in-fact, except that a temporary incapacity suspends the attorney-in-fact's authority only during the period of the incapacity. (8) Dissolution or annulment of the marriage of the attorney-in-fact and principal, as provided in Section 4154, (9) Death of the attorney-in-fact. (b) An attorney-in-fact or third person who does not have notice of an event that terminates the power of attorney or the authority of an attorney-in-fact is protected from liability as provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 4300). In the instant action, although Defendant Marenco apparently contends that her mother Martina was the “attorney-in-fact” under a power of attorney signed by Edly Williams at some unspecified time in the past, neither Defendant Marenco nor her mother Martina has a copy of any such alleged power of attorney. In any event, even it they had the original or a copy thereof, any such power of attorney would have been revoked automatically by Probate Code 4152. In other words, Edly Williams was legally incapable of conveying to Defendant Marenco or her mother any rights or powers of any nature via any such power of attorney which would still have any validity after his death. Thus, when Edly Williams died, any power of attorney which he allegedly issued to Defendant Marenco or her mother Martina died within him and was legally incapable of being used by either Defendant Marenco or her mother Martina for any actions after his death. Thus, any such power of attorney is completely irrelevant to any issue in the instant action and any power of attorney (or any mention of any such power of attorney) should be excluded completely from evidence in the instant action. B. Even If The Power of Attorney Were Relevant, Any Use or Mention of Any Such Power of Attorney Should Be Excluded Under Evidence Code Section 352. 1. The Court Has Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence Via Evidence Code Section 352. California Evidence Code Section 352 states in relevant part as follows: “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, or confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE 3. ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER OF ATTORNEYEvidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative if it poses an intolerable risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome. People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4" 155, 204 n. 14; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4" 690, 724. In deciding whether or not to exclude evidence under an Evidence Code Section 352 objection requires the trial judge to balance the probative value of the proffered evidence against its potential for prejudice, undue consumption of time, and/or confusion of the jury. Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 284, 291. A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to admit or exclude evidence to which an objection has been raised under Evidence Code Section 352. People v. Mullens 2004) 119 Cal.App.4° 648, 658. 2. Introduction of Evidence Pertaining to Any Alleged Power of Attorney Would Confuse the Jury, Due to the Rather Complex Nature of the Law As Applied to These Facts, As is clear from the discussion above in Section III-B, there is a complex interplay here between the various legal principles involved and the facts of the instant action. We have the impact of the death of Edly Williams in causing the termination of his tenancy and thus the termination of any power of attorney signed by Edly Williams before his death [see the interplay between Civil Code section 1934 and Miller & Desatnik Management Co. v. Bullock (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, 18.]. We have the intricacies of the date of revocation of the power of attorney under Probate Code Section 4152 and its interrelationship with when Edly Williams tenancy ended due to Civil Code Section 1934. There are just too many balls for the jury to juggle and keep straight. Thus, the Court should exercise its discretion under Evidence Code Section 352 to exclude any and all evidence pertaining to any claim by Defendant Marenco that she or her mother Martina had some purported right or power, including possibly some “right of possession” to Apartment 414 as the result of any power of attorney issued before his death by Edly Williams. IV. CONCLUSION For the myriad of reasons discussed above, any and all evidence proffered in support of any PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE -4. ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER OF ATTORNEYclaim by Defendant Marenco that she or her mother had some purported rights or powers after the death of Edly Williams based on some alleged power of attorney issued by Edly Williams before his death. Thus, any such power of attorney should be excluded, and Defendant and her attorneys should be barred from mentioning, referring to, interrogating any witness concerning, commenting on, attempting to suggest to the jury, or utilizing in any way and/or for any reason that she or her mother Martina had some purported power or right, including any “right of possession” to Apartment 414 and/or any claim by her that she had some “co-tenant” agreement with Edly Williams which provides any defense to either cause of action in the instant lawsuit. 4 4 PLE, fl), > / MICHAEL PHELPS, Attorney ‘opine Dated: March 3, 2014 PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ~5- ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED POWER OF ATTORNEY