Party Discovery: PHILLIP GARCIA VS. CARRIE WILSON, IN HER CAPACITCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                nD

LAW OFFICES OF BENNY MARTIN
Benjamin Martin (SBN 257452)
657 Santa Clara Ave.

Venice CA, 90291 ELECTRONICALLY

Phone: (510) 227-4406 FILED ©
Email: knowyourightsinsf@ gmail.com eed ees ot Corn
Attorneys for Plaintiff Phillip Garcia 08/07/2017

Clerk of the Court
BY:RONNIE OTERO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Deputy Clerk
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

PHILLIP GARCIA, an individual, Case No. CGC-14-538560

PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S
AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
11: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
INCONSISTENT WITH DEFENDANT
THE WILSON FAMILY

)
)
Plaintiff, }
)
)
)
ANGELO WILSON, an individual, et. al. } TRUST/CARRIE WILSON’S
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.

JUDICIAL ADMISSION RELATING
TO PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT

Defendants. OF UD JUDGMENT

Motion in Limine 11 of 12

Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action for Enforcement of debt seeks to enforce the UD judgment
entered against property manager Angelo Wilson against the property owners Defendants The Wilson]
Family Trust/Carrie Wilson. Since 2013, Defendants contended property owners The Wilson Family
Trust/Carrie Wilson had nothing to do with the UD action to recover possession of the Subject
Premises, and thus is not liable for UD judgment awarding fees/costs.

But in representations made in their Writ of Mandate (denied) to the First District Court of
Appeal, Defendants admitted Defendant The Wilson Family Trust was behind the UD action all
along.

In 2013, the Wilson Family Trust filed an unlawful detainer action against Mr. Garcia

based upon complaints from other tenants regarding excessive noise. Mr. Garcia

prevailed in the unlawful detainer action. [Internal citations omitted].

Coo
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
INCONSISTENT WITH DEFENDANT THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST/CARRIE WILSON’S JUDICIAL

ADMISSION RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF UD
JUDGMENTnD

Martin Decl. 420, Ex. S.| Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Scott Loeding, verified this admission under the
penalty of perjury.

This is a judicial admission, and Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants to this admission. This
admission directly controverts the exclusive factual and legal basis upon which Defendants The
Wilson Family Trust/Carrie Wilson denies liability for the UD judgment:

As a twentieth and separate affirmative defense to each and every cause of action

stated in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, this answering Defendant alleges that

neither she nor any Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST participated in or

controlled the unlawful detainer action entitled Angelo Wilson v. Phillip Garcia (San

Francisco County Superior Court, Case Number CUD-13-645240) and had no reason

to believe that such action would carry a risk of personal liability. This answering

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's attempt to enforce the judgment obtained against

ANGELO WILSON and enforce it against this answering Defendant violates this

answering Defendant's rights under the Federal and State Constitutions.

Martin Decl. 421, Ex. T, 13:10-18. Defendants should be precluded from offering any evidence or
argument against this judicial admission.
A JUDICIAL ADMISSION IS A WAIVER OF A PROOF OF FACT, AND REMOVES THE
MATTER FROM TRIABLE ISSUES.

According to Witkin:

An admission in the pleadings is not treated procedurally as evidence; i.e., the

pleading need not (and should not) be offered in evidence, but may be commented on

in argument and relied on as part of the case. And it is fundamentally different from

evidence. It is a waiver of proof of a fact by conceding its truth, and it has the effect

of removing the matter from the issues.
5 Witkin Cal. Proc. Plead § 452. Formal or “judicial” admissions “are conclusive concessions of the
truth of those matters, are effectively removed as issues from the litigation, and may not be

contradicted...” Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 735, 746.

' Declaration of Plaintiff's Counsel Benny Martin in Support of Plaintiff’s Oppositions to
Defendants’ Motions in Limine.
-2-
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
INCONSISTENT WITH DEFENDANT THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST/CARRIE WILSON’S JUDICIAL
ADMISSION RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF UD
JUDGMENTnD

The judicial admission doctrine applies to counsel statements in pleadings. Valerio v. Andrew
Youngquist Const. (2002) 103 C.A.4th 1264, 1271. A judicial admission may be made at trial. 1 Cal.
Proc. (Sth), Attorneys, §263 et seq.

[I]f in the progress of a trial, either by such admission or proof, a fact is developed

which must necessarily put an end to the action, the court may, upon its own motion,

or that of counsel, act upon it and close the case.

Scafidi v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co., (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 550, 561-562, quoting, Oscanyan v.
Arms Company, (1880) 103 U.S. 261, 263.

According to the California Supreme Court, a party’s lawyer can bind a client to a fact
admission made at trial. Horn v. Atchison, T & S.F. Ry. Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 602, 605 (binding
admission made during counsel’s opening statement). “In the absence of fraud, the admissions of an
attorney in open court are binding upon the client.” Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n.
y. Lamb Finance Co., (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 702, 708.

Here, Mr. Loeding verified under the penalty of perjury the fact that Defendants The Wilson
Family Trust/Carrie Wilson brought the UD action. Martin Decl. §20, Ex. S. Defendants should be
prohibited from providing inconsistent evidence thereon at trial. The result is that Defendant The
Wilson Family Trust is liable for the UD judgment.

II. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons above-stated, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff's

Motion in Limine #11.

DATE: June 11, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF BENNY MARTIN

Benny Martin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff

Lege
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
INCONSISTENT WITH DEFENDANT THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST/CARRIE WILSON’S JUDICIAL
ADMISSION RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF UD
JUDGMENT