On June 15, 2017 a
Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO ICON WEST, INC. AND NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATIONS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR COMMENT FROM PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS BASED ON INADMISSIBLE CASE-S
was filed
involving a dispute between
Icon West Inc.,
Kone Inc. Doe 3,
Motion Control Engineering Inc. Doe 1,
Nidec America Corporation Doe 2,
The Regents Of The University Of,
Icon-West Inc,
Kone Inc.,
Truong Kent,
and
Icon West Inc.,
Icon West Inc. A California Corporation,
Kone Inc.,
Kone Inc. Doe 3,
Motion Control Engineering Inc. Doe 1,
Motion Industries Incorporation,
Nidec America Corporation Doe 2,
Otis Elevator Company,
The Regents Of The University Of,
Ucla Facilities Management,
United Technologies Corporation,
University Of California Los Angeles,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/05/2021 06:21 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Parenteau,Deputy Clerk
1 Gary A. Dordick, Esq. S/B# 128008
John M. Upton, Esq. S/B# 162858
2 Alaa A. Yasin, Esq. S/B# 263855
DORDICK LAW CORPORATION
3 509 South Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212
4 Tel: (310) 551-0949 • Fax: (855) 299-4444
Attorney for Plaintiff Kent Truong
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE
10
11 KENT TRUONG, Case No. BC665309
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ICON
13 v. WEST, INC. AND NIDEC MOTOR
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE
14 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR
CALIFORNIA; UNIVERSITY OF COMMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S
15 CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES; UCLA EXPERTS BASED ON INADMISSIBLE
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT; OTIS CASE-SPECIFIC HEARSAY
16 ELEVATOR COMPANY; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
17 MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 (Assigned to: Hon. Helen Zukin, Dept. 207)
to 100,
18 Action Filed: June 15, 2017
Defendants. FSC: November 8, 2021
19 Trial: November 15, 2021
20
21
22
23 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff Kent Truong (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) will and
25 hereby does oppose Motion in Limine No. 5 of Defendant Icon West, Inc. and Nidec Motor
26 Corporation’s (collectively, the “Nidec Defendants”) to exclude evidence or comment from
27 Plaintiff’s experts cased on inadmissible case-specific hearsay.
28 This Motion should be denied for the following reasons:
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO NIDEC DEFENDANTS’ MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE/COMMENT
FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS BASED ON INADMISSIBLE CASE-SPECIFIC HEARSAY
Document Filed Date
November 05, 2021
Case Filing Date
June 15, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/05/2021 06:21 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Parenteau,Deputy Clerk 1 Gary A. Dordick, Esq. S/B# 128008 John M. Upton, Esq. S/B# 162858 2 Alaa A. Yasin, Esq. S/B# 263855 DORDICK LAW CORPORATION 3 509 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212 4 Tel: (310) 551-0949 • Fax: (855) 299-4444 Attorney for Plaintiff Kent Truong 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE 10 11 KENT TRUONG, Case No. BC665309 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ICON 13 v. WEST, INC. AND NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE 14 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR CALIFORNIA; UNIVERSITY OF COMMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S 15 CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES; UCLA EXPERTS BASED ON INADMISSIBLE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT; OTIS CASE-SPECIFIC HEARSAY 16 ELEVATOR COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; 17 MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 (Assigned to: Hon. Helen Zukin, Dept. 207) to 100, 18 Action Filed: June 15, 2017 Defendants. FSC: November 8, 2021 19 Trial: November 15, 2021 20 21 22 23 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff Kent Truong (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) will and 25 hereby does oppose Motion in Limine No. 5 of Defendant Icon West, Inc. and Nidec Motor 26 Corporation’s (collectively, the “Nidec Defendants”) to exclude evidence or comment from 27 Plaintiff’s experts cased on inadmissible case-specific hearsay. 28 This Motion should be denied for the following reasons: 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO NIDEC DEFENDANTS’ MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE/COMMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS BASED ON INADMISSIBLE CASE-SPECIFIC HEARSAY