Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
1 Vivian Yochelson, Esq. Sb No. 186319 6/5/2023 7:53 PM
YOCHELSON & ASSOCIATES By: Narzralli Baksh , Deputy
2 A Professional Corporation
3 5955 De Soto Ave, Suite 125
Woodland Hills, California 91367
4 Phone : (818) 345-9050
Fax : (888) 390-4816
5 Email : vivian@yochelsonlaw.com
6
7 In association with:
Ellen Levin, Esq. Sb No. 219922
8 THE LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN LEVIN P.C.
5955 De Soto Ave, Suite 125
9 Woodland Hills, California 91367
10 Phone : (818) 491-3410
Fax : (818) 491-3409
11 Email : ellen@ellenlevinlawoffice.com
12
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Margaret O'Brien
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
16
17
MARGARET O’BRIEN, Case No.: 19CV04625
18
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
19 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT
20 vs. PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY
WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A
21 MARGARITO AVILA; EL ALBA BEEF THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INC. and DOES 1 to 50 , inclusive, INCIDENT
22
23 Defendants. Trial Confirmation: June 12, 2023
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
1
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE on June 12, 2023, in Department 5 of this Court, Plaintiff
3 MARGARET O’BRIEN, will move the Court for issuance of the following orders:
4
1) An order precluding any argument that Plaintiff and/or a Third Party was negligent or
5
6 that plaintiff or a Third Party contributed to the incident;
7 2) An order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses of the court's
8 exclusionary order on this motion; and
9
3) An order requiring the attorney for Defendant, prior to making any references,
10
comments, or assertions concerning such matters, to approach the bench and make an
11
12 offer of proof to the court so that the court, prior to any presentation of the above
13 referenced evidence to the jury, can make a preliminary determination of the
14 relevancy and admissibility thereof.
15
This motion is based upon Evidence Code, sections 350 and 352. The motion is further
16
based upon the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on
17
18 file in this action, and upon such argument and evidence as may be presented prior to or at the
19 hearing of this matter.
20
21
22 DATED: June 5, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN LEVIN P.C.
23
24 By:______________________
Ellen Levin, Esq.
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
2
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 Plaintiff brings this motion in limine pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 350
3 and 352 to exclude any argument that plaintiff and/or a third party was negligent or that she or a
4 third party contributed to the incident.
5 I.
6 INTRODUCTION
7 Defendants may attempt to argue Ms. O’Brien and/or a Third Party was negligent and
8 contributed to the crash, as Defendants have pled an affirmative defense of negligence on the
9 part of Plaintiff as well as Third Parties. However, there must be competent testimony that some
10 action by Ms. O’Brien was (1) negligent, and (2) that her negligence was a substantial factor in
11 causing the crash in order for this evidence to be admissible and/or (3) a Third Party’s neglignece
12 was a substantial factor in causing the crash in order for this evidence to be admissible. There
13 has been no expert testimony (or any testimony for that matter) supporting the position that Ms.
14 O’Brien or a Third Party was negligent nor that she or a Third Party contributed (i.e. was a
15 substantial factor) to the crash.
16 In fact, Defendants dismissed the Cross-Defendant with prejudice at the eve of Cross-
17 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, for the very reason there was no evidence to tie any
18 Third Party to this crash.
19 Defendant designated an accident recon/biomechanic expert to try to prove a causal link
20 between Ms. O’Brien and/or a Third Party and the crash. At the writing of this Motion in
21 Limine, the deposition of Defendants’ accident recon/biomechanic has not been conducted due
22 to calendaring issues. However, based on the evidence presented in this case thus far both in
23 written discovery and depositions, it is anticipated that Defendants’ expert will not be able to link
24 any causal link between either Plaintiff or any Third Party and the crash, and this expert’s
25 testimony will therefore be excluded.
26 As such, any argument that Plaintiff and/or a Third Party was negligent or that she or a
27 Third Party contributed to the crash must be excluded.
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
3
1 II.
2 ARGUMENT
3 “A defendant bears the burden of proving affirmative defenses and indemnity cross-
4 claims. Apportionment of noneconomic damages is a form of equitable indemnity in which a
5 defendant may reduce his or her damages by establishing others are also at fault for the
6 plaintiff’s injuries. Placing the burden on defendant to prove fault as to nonparty tortfeasors is
7 not unjustified or unduly onerous.” Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 369.
8 Just as the plaintiff has the burden of proving defendant’s negligence, the defendant has
9 the burden of establishing that some nonzero percentage of fault is properly attributed to the
10 plaintiff. Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285. To find comparative
11 fault against a plaintiff, a jury must determine that the plaintiff’s actions or omissions fell below
12 the standard to which he should conform for his own protection. Additionally, a jury must find
13 that plaintiff’s negligent conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing his injuries.
14 A defendant seeking to prove a link between Plaintiff’s alleged negligence and his
15 injuries must provide evidence, such as expert witness testimony, to establish this link. Thus,
16 proffering an expert opinion that there is some theoretical possibility the negligent act could have
17 been a cause-in-fact of a particular injury is insufficient to establish causation. Saelzler v.
18 Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 775–776 [expert testimony positing a “ ‘mere
19 possibility of such causation is not enough. . .’ ”]; accord, Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996)
20 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 487.
21 Defendant wishes to present to the jury that it was “possible” Ms. O’Brien and/or a Third
22 Party was negligent and it was “possible” she and/or a Third Party contributed to the incident.
23 There is absolutely no evidence from any witness – expert or otherwise – that suggests this to be
24 true.
25 With regard to a claim that a Third Party was the negligent party, Defendants filed a
26 cross-complaint against the tire retailer who sold Defendants the subject tire 10 months prior to
27 the subject crash. And, when it became clear there was zero evidence to hold the tire retailer
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
4
1 responsible for the crash, Defendants dismissed the tire retailer with prejudice. It is anticipated
2 Defendants intend to point to an empty chair where there is no evidence to do so.
3 The Defendants discarded the tire on the day of the subject incident. The tire was never
4 inspected to determine the condition of the tire at the time of the crash, other than one
5 photograph taken at the scene of the crash, which show that the tread had separated from the tire.
6 Defendants were unable to gather any evidence to support its claim it was the tire retailer not the
7 Defendants, and they should not be able to take up the time in Court to try and do so now.
8
9 III.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the foregoing reasons and in the interest of justice, Plaintiff asks this Court to exclude
12 any argument that Plaintiff and/or a Third Party was negligent or that she and/or a Third Party
13 contributed to the incident in any way.
14
DATED: June 5, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN LEVIN
15
16
By:______________________
17 Ellen Levin, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
5
DECLARATION OF ELLEN LEVIN
1
2 I, ELLEN LEVIN, declare,
3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of
4 California. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and if called upon as
5 a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
6 2. I am the trial attorney representing plaintiff Margaret O’Brien in this case.
7 3. On June 5, 2023 at 8:53 a.m., my co-counsel, Vivian Yochelson, emailed a Meet and
8 Confer letter to counsel for Defendants, advising her of Plaintiff’s intention to bring this Motion in
9 Limine and to please contact me no later than 3:00 p.m. on June 5, 2023 to discuss further
10 4. Having not received a response from counsel for Defendants, this motion in Limine
11 has been filed.
12 5. I am of the belief that, if this motion is not granted, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable
13 harm and prejudice to her substantial rights. .
14 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of
15 the State of California.
16 Executed this 5th day of June 2023 in Woodland Hills, California.
17
18 _________________________
19 Ellen Levin, Declarant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
9
10 MARGARET O’BRIEN, Case No.: 19CV04625
11 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO
12 vs. EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
13 AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS
MARGARITO AVILA; EL ALBA BEEF NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A
14 INC and DOES 1 to 50 , inclusive, THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
15 Defendants.
16
17
18
19 The Honorable Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 10, for an order
20 precluding argument that plaintiff and/or a third party was negligent or that she or a third party
21 contributed to the incident, hereby orders as follows:
22
23
GRANTED: YES_____________ NO______________
24
25
DATED: _______________, 2023 ____________________________
26 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
7
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My business
3 address is 5955 De Soto Avenue Suite 125 Woodland Hills, CA 91367
4 On June 5, 2023, I served the following document(s): PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS
5
NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
6 INCIDENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action as follows:
7 Attorneys for Defendants Margarito Avila and El Alba Beef
8 Jennifer T. Tseng, Bar No. 134235
TSENG & ASSOCIATES
9 241 Lombard Street, Suite 201
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
10 (805) 370-1622 Fax: (805) 370-1621
Tsenglaw@Lawyer.com
11
12 (X) EMAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement of
the parties to accept service by email or electronic transmission, I caused the documents
13 to be sent to the person at the email address listed in the SERVICE LIST. I did not receive,
14 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication
that the transmission was unsuccessful.
15
(X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
16 the above is true and correct. (C.C.P. § 2015.5)
17
Executed on June 5, 2023, in Woodland Hills, California
18
19
20
21 VIVIAN YOCHELSON
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF
AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
INCIDENT
8
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1 Vivian Yochelson, Esq. Sb No. 186319 6/5/2023 7:53 PM YOCHELSON & ASSOCIATES By: Narzralli Baksh , Deputy 2 A Professional Corporation 3 5955 De Soto Ave, Suite 125 Woodland Hills, California 91367 4 Phone : (818) 345-9050 Fax : (888) 390-4816 5 Email : vivian@yochelsonlaw.com 6 7 In association with: Ellen Levin, Esq. Sb No. 219922 8 THE LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN LEVIN P.C. 5955 De Soto Ave, Suite 125 9 Woodland Hills, California 91367 10 Phone : (818) 491-3410 Fax : (818) 491-3409 11 Email : ellen@ellenlevinlawoffice.com 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Margaret O'Brien 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 16 17 MARGARET O’BRIEN, Case No.: 19CV04625 18 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT 20 vs. PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A 21 MARGARITO AVILA; EL ALBA BEEF THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INC. and DOES 1 to 50 , inclusive, INCIDENT 22 23 Defendants. Trial Confirmation: June 12, 2023 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 1 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE on June 12, 2023, in Department 5 of this Court, Plaintiff 3 MARGARET O’BRIEN, will move the Court for issuance of the following orders: 4 1) An order precluding any argument that Plaintiff and/or a Third Party was negligent or 5 6 that plaintiff or a Third Party contributed to the incident; 7 2) An order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses of the court's 8 exclusionary order on this motion; and 9 3) An order requiring the attorney for Defendant, prior to making any references, 10 comments, or assertions concerning such matters, to approach the bench and make an 11 12 offer of proof to the court so that the court, prior to any presentation of the above 13 referenced evidence to the jury, can make a preliminary determination of the 14 relevancy and admissibility thereof. 15 This motion is based upon Evidence Code, sections 350 and 352. The motion is further 16 based upon the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on 17 18 file in this action, and upon such argument and evidence as may be presented prior to or at the 19 hearing of this matter. 20 21 22 DATED: June 5, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN LEVIN P.C. 23 24 By:______________________ Ellen Levin, Esq. 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 2 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Plaintiff brings this motion in limine pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 350 3 and 352 to exclude any argument that plaintiff and/or a third party was negligent or that she or a 4 third party contributed to the incident. 5 I. 6 INTRODUCTION 7 Defendants may attempt to argue Ms. O’Brien and/or a Third Party was negligent and 8 contributed to the crash, as Defendants have pled an affirmative defense of negligence on the 9 part of Plaintiff as well as Third Parties. However, there must be competent testimony that some 10 action by Ms. O’Brien was (1) negligent, and (2) that her negligence was a substantial factor in 11 causing the crash in order for this evidence to be admissible and/or (3) a Third Party’s neglignece 12 was a substantial factor in causing the crash in order for this evidence to be admissible. There 13 has been no expert testimony (or any testimony for that matter) supporting the position that Ms. 14 O’Brien or a Third Party was negligent nor that she or a Third Party contributed (i.e. was a 15 substantial factor) to the crash. 16 In fact, Defendants dismissed the Cross-Defendant with prejudice at the eve of Cross- 17 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, for the very reason there was no evidence to tie any 18 Third Party to this crash. 19 Defendant designated an accident recon/biomechanic expert to try to prove a causal link 20 between Ms. O’Brien and/or a Third Party and the crash. At the writing of this Motion in 21 Limine, the deposition of Defendants’ accident recon/biomechanic has not been conducted due 22 to calendaring issues. However, based on the evidence presented in this case thus far both in 23 written discovery and depositions, it is anticipated that Defendants’ expert will not be able to link 24 any causal link between either Plaintiff or any Third Party and the crash, and this expert’s 25 testimony will therefore be excluded. 26 As such, any argument that Plaintiff and/or a Third Party was negligent or that she or a 27 Third Party contributed to the crash must be excluded. 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 3 1 II. 2 ARGUMENT 3 “A defendant bears the burden of proving affirmative defenses and indemnity cross- 4 claims. Apportionment of noneconomic damages is a form of equitable indemnity in which a 5 defendant may reduce his or her damages by establishing others are also at fault for the 6 plaintiff’s injuries. Placing the burden on defendant to prove fault as to nonparty tortfeasors is 7 not unjustified or unduly onerous.” Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 369. 8 Just as the plaintiff has the burden of proving defendant’s negligence, the defendant has 9 the burden of establishing that some nonzero percentage of fault is properly attributed to the 10 plaintiff. Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285. To find comparative 11 fault against a plaintiff, a jury must determine that the plaintiff’s actions or omissions fell below 12 the standard to which he should conform for his own protection. Additionally, a jury must find 13 that plaintiff’s negligent conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing his injuries. 14 A defendant seeking to prove a link between Plaintiff’s alleged negligence and his 15 injuries must provide evidence, such as expert witness testimony, to establish this link. Thus, 16 proffering an expert opinion that there is some theoretical possibility the negligent act could have 17 been a cause-in-fact of a particular injury is insufficient to establish causation. Saelzler v. 18 Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 775–776 [expert testimony positing a “ ‘mere 19 possibility of such causation is not enough. . .’ ”]; accord, Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 20 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 487. 21 Defendant wishes to present to the jury that it was “possible” Ms. O’Brien and/or a Third 22 Party was negligent and it was “possible” she and/or a Third Party contributed to the incident. 23 There is absolutely no evidence from any witness – expert or otherwise – that suggests this to be 24 true. 25 With regard to a claim that a Third Party was the negligent party, Defendants filed a 26 cross-complaint against the tire retailer who sold Defendants the subject tire 10 months prior to 27 the subject crash. And, when it became clear there was zero evidence to hold the tire retailer 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 4 1 responsible for the crash, Defendants dismissed the tire retailer with prejudice. It is anticipated 2 Defendants intend to point to an empty chair where there is no evidence to do so. 3 The Defendants discarded the tire on the day of the subject incident. The tire was never 4 inspected to determine the condition of the tire at the time of the crash, other than one 5 photograph taken at the scene of the crash, which show that the tread had separated from the tire. 6 Defendants were unable to gather any evidence to support its claim it was the tire retailer not the 7 Defendants, and they should not be able to take up the time in Court to try and do so now. 8 9 III. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons and in the interest of justice, Plaintiff asks this Court to exclude 12 any argument that Plaintiff and/or a Third Party was negligent or that she and/or a Third Party 13 contributed to the incident in any way. 14 DATED: June 5, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN LEVIN 15 16 By:______________________ 17 Ellen Levin, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 5 DECLARATION OF ELLEN LEVIN 1 2 I, ELLEN LEVIN, declare, 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of 4 California. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and if called upon as 5 a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 6 2. I am the trial attorney representing plaintiff Margaret O’Brien in this case. 7 3. On June 5, 2023 at 8:53 a.m., my co-counsel, Vivian Yochelson, emailed a Meet and 8 Confer letter to counsel for Defendants, advising her of Plaintiff’s intention to bring this Motion in 9 Limine and to please contact me no later than 3:00 p.m. on June 5, 2023 to discuss further 10 4. Having not received a response from counsel for Defendants, this motion in Limine 11 has been filed. 12 5. I am of the belief that, if this motion is not granted, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable 13 harm and prejudice to her substantial rights. . 14 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of 15 the State of California. 16 Executed this 5th day of June 2023 in Woodland Hills, California. 17 18 _________________________ 19 Ellen Levin, Declarant 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 9 10 MARGARET O’BRIEN, Case No.: 19CV04625 11 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO 12 vs. EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF 13 AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS MARGARITO AVILA; EL ALBA BEEF NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A 14 INC and DOES 1 to 50 , inclusive, THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 The Honorable Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 10, for an order 20 precluding argument that plaintiff and/or a third party was negligent or that she or a third party 21 contributed to the incident, hereby orders as follows: 22 23 GRANTED: YES_____________ NO______________ 24 25 DATED: _______________, 2023 ____________________________ 26 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 7 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My business 3 address is 5955 De Soto Avenue Suite 125 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 4 On June 5, 2023, I served the following document(s): PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS 5 NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE 6 INCIDENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action as follows: 7 Attorneys for Defendants Margarito Avila and El Alba Beef 8 Jennifer T. Tseng, Bar No. 134235 TSENG & ASSOCIATES 9 241 Lombard Street, Suite 201 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 10 (805) 370-1622 Fax: (805) 370-1621 Tsenglaw@Lawyer.com 11 12 (X) EMAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by email or electronic transmission, I caused the documents 13 to be sent to the person at the email address listed in the SERVICE LIST. I did not receive, 14 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 15 (X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 16 the above is true and correct. (C.C.P. § 2015.5) 17 Executed on June 5, 2023, in Woodland Hills, California 18 19 20 21 VIVIAN YOCHELSON 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF AND/OR A THIRD PARTY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT SHE OR A THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT 8