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
David S. Brown; Bar No. 89438 FILED
Superior Court of California
Joan Benjamin Brown; Bar No. 93572 County of Las Angeles
Aaron M. Brown; Bar No. 277981
23326 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 380 MAY 07 2018
Torrance, CA 90505-3725 Sherri R. Ca ihe tear of Court
310-378-3733; fax 310-378-0703
mrtorts@aol.com By. Deputy
Pow! Canohes
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
Marie Underhill, Plaintiff, BC638507, Dept. 4, trial 5-15-18
11
Vv.
12
Estate of Testa (Deceased) and Does OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN
13 1 to 100, Defendants. LIMINE 1
14
15
16
Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion in limine 1, which seeks to preclude
17
plaintiff's counsel from discussing the amount of non-economic damages with the jury
18
in voir dire.
19
20 This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff, Marie Underhill, suffered a serious
21 personal injury when she fell due to the negligence of defendant.
22
The purpose of a motion in limine is to exclude particular evidence that is
23.
$7 inadmissible on its face or inadmissible by virtue of its prejudicial versus probative
24,
@
- effect. Defendant’s motion does not address any particular evidence and therefore the
# motion cannot be granted. Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4"
27
659, 671.
28
The purpose of voir dire is to find out about any prejudices or biases potential
OPPOSITION TO MOTION /N LIMINE 1
Document Filed Date
May 07, 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 David S. Brown; Bar No. 89438 FILED Superior Court of California Joan Benjamin Brown; Bar No. 93572 County of Las Angeles Aaron M. Brown; Bar No. 277981 23326 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 380 MAY 07 2018 Torrance, CA 90505-3725 Sherri R. Ca ihe tear of Court 310-378-3733; fax 310-378-0703 mrtorts@aol.com By. Deputy Pow! Canohes Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 Marie Underhill, Plaintiff, BC638507, Dept. 4, trial 5-15-18 11 Vv. 12 Estate of Testa (Deceased) and Does OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN 13 1 to 100, Defendants. LIMINE 1 14 15 16 Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion in limine 1, which seeks to preclude 17 plaintiff's counsel from discussing the amount of non-economic damages with the jury 18 in voir dire. 19 20 This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff, Marie Underhill, suffered a serious 21 personal injury when she fell due to the negligence of defendant. 22 The purpose of a motion in limine is to exclude particular evidence that is 23. $7 inadmissible on its face or inadmissible by virtue of its prejudicial versus probative 24, @ - effect. Defendant’s motion does not address any particular evidence and therefore the # motion cannot be granted. Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4" 27 659, 671. 28 The purpose of voir dire is to find out about any prejudices or biases potential OPPOSITION TO MOTION /N LIMINE 1