On October 26, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Underhill Marie,
and
Does 1 To 100,
Estate Of Testa,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Brown, Brown & Brown FILED
David S. Brown; Bar No. 89438 Superior Court of California
Countv of Los Angeles
Joan Benjamin Brown; Bar No. 93572
Aaron M. Brown; Bar No. 277981 MAY 14 2018
23326 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 380
x
Sherri R. Ca er, Executive Otliccr/Clerk of Cqurt
Torrance, CA 90505-3725
310-378-3733; fax 310-378-0703 By. sDepu
Raul Sanchez
mrtorts@aol.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
1 Marie Underhill, Plaintiff, BC638507, Dept. 4, trial 5-15-18
Vv
12
Estate of Testa (Deceased) and Does OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN
13 1 to 100, Defendants. LIMINE 12
14
15
16
Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion in limine 12, which seeks to preclude
17
plaintiff's liability expert from testifying that the California Building Code applies to the
18
subject property and that the unfinished walkway failed to comply. Contrary to
19
20 defendant's unsupported conclusions, there is no “black letter law” stating that the
21 California Building Code does not apply. The Code itself says it does apply.
22
This is not a proper subject for a motion in limine. Defendant is re-litigating its
23
lost motion for summary judgment. Defendant again argues, with no support, that the
24
California Building Code does not apply. Plaintiff's liability expert should be permitted to
eB
testify as to what provisions apply to this property and why.
27
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 12
Document Filed Date
May 14, 2018
Case Filing Date
October 26, 2016
Status
Jury Verdict 05/25/2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Brown, Brown & Brown FILED David S. Brown; Bar No. 89438 Superior Court of California Countv of Los Angeles Joan Benjamin Brown; Bar No. 93572 Aaron M. Brown; Bar No. 277981 MAY 14 2018 23326 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 380 x Sherri R. Ca er, Executive Otliccr/Clerk of Cqurt Torrance, CA 90505-3725 310-378-3733; fax 310-378-0703 By. sDepu Raul Sanchez mrtorts@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 1 Marie Underhill, Plaintiff, BC638507, Dept. 4, trial 5-15-18 Vv 12 Estate of Testa (Deceased) and Does OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN 13 1 to 100, Defendants. LIMINE 12 14 15 16 Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion in limine 12, which seeks to preclude 17 plaintiff's liability expert from testifying that the California Building Code applies to the 18 subject property and that the unfinished walkway failed to comply. Contrary to 19 20 defendant's unsupported conclusions, there is no “black letter law” stating that the 21 California Building Code does not apply. The Code itself says it does apply. 22 This is not a proper subject for a motion in limine. Defendant is re-litigating its 23 lost motion for summary judgment. Defendant again argues, with no support, that the 24 California Building Code does not apply. Plaintiff's liability expert should be permitted to eB testify as to what provisions apply to this property and why. 27 28 OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 12