On May 16, 2016 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Zepeda Jose,
and
Michno Pam Judgment,
Perras Joelean Judgment,
Starbucks Corporation,
Zepeda Jose,
for Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Supe rior Court of Cal
Ounty of
ifornia
Angeles
RULING ON MOTION IN LIMINE
APR 17 2018
ZEPEDA V. STARBUCKS
BC 620 585
duction of unemployment b enefits
s to excl ude evid ence of unem ployment benefits, alleging that the intro
Plaintiff seek
constitutes a collateral source. ant as to 1) the reasons for Plain’ tiff’s
relev
ant not asa collateral source, but are
Defendant claims the evidence is relev iff's diabetes and 3) is relevant to his claim
s for
) to demo nstr ate Star buck ’s lack of knowledge of Plaint cial jury
termination and_2 ies a spe
dama ges. Th e court wil il defer ruling on this motion until Defendant suppl
economic and non-econ omic the
lence of unemployment benefits. Until
uctio n indic ating the limit ed purp ose t! hat the jury should view this evid
instr
to such unemployment benefits.
matter has been ruled on, there should be no re’ ference
G
gO Alexcoa
APR 47 Hie
Nd
2
mo
oo
Document Filed Date
April 17, 2018
Case Filing Date
May 16, 2016
Category
Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Jury Verdict 04/27/2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Supe rior Court of Cal Ounty of ifornia Angeles RULING ON MOTION IN LIMINE APR 17 2018 ZEPEDA V. STARBUCKS BC 620 585 duction of unemployment b enefits s to excl ude evid ence of unem ployment benefits, alleging that the intro Plaintiff seek constitutes a collateral source. ant as to 1) the reasons for Plain’ tiff’s relev ant not asa collateral source, but are Defendant claims the evidence is relev iff's diabetes and 3) is relevant to his claim s for ) to demo nstr ate Star buck ’s lack of knowledge of Plaint cial jury termination and_2 ies a spe dama ges. Th e court wil il defer ruling on this motion until Defendant suppl economic and non-econ omic the lence of unemployment benefits. Until uctio n indic ating the limit ed purp ose t! hat the jury should view this evid instr to such unemployment benefits. matter has been ruled on, there should be no re’ ference G gO Alexcoa APR 47 Hie Nd 2 mo oo