arrow left
arrow right
  • MARIE UNDERHILL VS ESTATE OF TESTA Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • MARIE UNDERHILL VS ESTATE OF TESTA Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Hetal J. Kommes, State Bar No. 255838 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES Employees of the Law Department F D State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Superlor Court of California 655 North Central Avenue, 12" Floor County of Tne Anoeles Glendale, California 91203-1434 APR 19 2018 Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606 E-Mail Address: Cali.Law-Kommes@StateFarm.com SherriR, Carter, sxecuave visi hee Lierk of Court Attorneys for defendant Estate of Lynne S. Testa, Deceased, 2 » Deputy Judi Lara erroneously sued and served as Estate of Testa (Deceased) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 Marie Underhill, NO. BC638507 Complaint Filed: October 26, 2016 12 Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Dennis Landin Department: 4 13 Vv. Trial Date: May 15, 2018 14 Estate of Testa (Deceased) and Does 1 to 100, FSC: May 1, 2018 Time: 10:00 a.m. 15 Defendants. Dept.: 4 16 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE FOR AN ORDER 17 PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING/IMPOSING AN IMPROPER 18 STANDARD OF CARE; DECLARATION OF HETAL J. KOMMES; 19 ORDER [PROPOSED] 20 INTRODUCTION 21 22 The issues in this case are whether or not defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's 23 claimed injuries, and the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries and damages. Defendant a 3s anticipates plaintiff will implement a trial strategy that employs irrelevant and prejudicial arguments to increase her likelihood of inflating her damages. Specifically, defendant believes 26 plaintiff will argue defendant should have acted in the “safest” manner possible even though as a 27 matter of law defendant was only required to act as a reasonable person would have acted under 28 the same circumstances. Defendant further believes plaintiff will argue to the jury that they need 1 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE