Motion,Ex Parte: AMPELIO CASTANEDA VS METTA DOLLAR

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 08/14/2019 01:28 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Lopez,Deputy Clerk




               1            Bryan C. Zaverl, State Bar No. 240152
                            MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
               2            Employees of the Law Department
                            State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
               3            655 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor
                            Glendale, California 91203-1434
               4            Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606
                            E-Mail Address: Cali.law-glendale@statefarm.com
               5
                            Attorneys for defendant Metta Dollar
               6

               7

               8                                         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
               9                                                      FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
               10

               11            Ampelio Castaneda,                                                           )    NO. BC697761
                                                                                                          )    Complaint Filed: March 15, 2018
               12                       Plaintiff,                                                        )    Judge:        Hon. Laura A. Seigle
                                                                                                          )    Department: 4B
               13                                               v.                                        )    Trial Date:   September 16, 2019
                                                                                                          )
               14            Metta Dollar, and Does 1 to 10,                                              )    FSC:                   August 29, 2019
                                                                                                          )    Time:                  10:00 a.m.
               15                       Defendants.                                                       )    Dept.:                 4B
                                                                                                          )
               16                                                                                              DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
                                                                                                               NO. 1 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING
               17                                                                                              PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING
                                                                                                               THE JURY AS TO THE DOLLAR
               18                                                                                              AMOUNT OF DAMAGES;
                                                                                                               DECLARATION OF BRYAN C.
               19                                                                                              ZAVERL
               20

               21                                                                                    I.

               22                                    IT IS IMPROPER TO USE VOIR DIRE TO PRECONDITION

               23                                                                          THE JURORS

               24

               25                      Defendant anticipates that during voir dire plaintiff may ask the prospective jurors for a

               26           commitment regarding the dollar amount of damages in this case, i.e., would the juror have any

               27           reluctance in reaching a verdict in excess of X amount of money, for example $1,000,000.00.

               28           This should not be allowed as it constitutes improper conditioning of the jury.

                                                                                                    -1-
                                                                        DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1