On November 07, 2018 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Pacific Union International, Inc.,
and
Booth, Paul D., Trustee Of The Anything Trust,
Erik Ludwick,
The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007,
for Civil-Roseville
in the District Court of Placer County.
Preview
1 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222)
2 sbj@sbj-law.com
3 LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214)
lam@sbj-law.com
4 208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, California 94526
5 Telephone: (925) 837-2317
Facsimile: (925) 837-4831
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
8
9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
11 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No. SCV0042080
)
12 Plaintiff, ) MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT
)
13 v. ) TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE
) OPERATIVE COMPLAINT
14 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and )
beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated )
15 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST )
DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. ) Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
16 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The ) Trial Date: August 8, 2022
Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and )
17 DOES 1-50, )
)
18 Defendants. )
)
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Through this Motion in Limine No. 6, Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION
22 INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Pacific Union”) requests an order to limit the trial to Causes of
23 Action in the operative Complaint.
24 Pacific Union anticipates that Defendant may attempt to introduce issues or
25 claims that are outside of the operative complaint and Defendant’s answer to this complaint in
26 this action, such as the claims brought by Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court
27 Case No. 19STCV25331, entitled Erik Ludwick v. Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage &
28
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT
1 Acquisitions, et al. (“Los Angeles Action”), or the proposed cross-complaint that Defendants are
2 currently seeking leave to file.
3 Such evidence is irrelevant to Pacific Union’s claims. Moreover, to the extent
4 that the Court grants Defendants leave to file their cross-complaint two court days before trial
5 commences, the cross-complaint will not be at issue and ready to be adjudicated. The admission
6 of such evidence would be unduly prejudicial, confusing, and misleading and would necessitate
7 the undue consumption of time. The Court should exclude all such evidence.
8 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
9 Pacific Union hereby incorporates by reference their Statement of Facts In
10 Support of All Motions in Limine.
11 III. ARGUMENT
12 Evidence Code section 350 provides, “no evidence is admissible except relevant
13 evidence.” The California Supreme Court has held that evidence not pertinent to the issues
14 raised by the pleadings is immaterial and cannot be introduced. (Fuentes v. Tucker (1947) 31
15 Cal.2d 1, 4-7.) In order for evidence to be admissible, it must both correspondence with the
16 substance of the material allegations and be relevant to the issue sin dispute. (Decter v.
17 Stevenson Properties (1952) 39 Cal.2d 407, 419-420.) If a legal theory has not been raised in a
18 pleading, no facts supporting that theory can be raised at trial. (Evid. Code §§350, 403; see also
19 City of Stanton v. Cox (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1563.) Any new facts that are raised at trial
20 must be inextricably related to the facts alleged in the pleadings. (See General Credit Corp. v.
21 Pichel (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 844, 850.) Accordingly, any additional facts that are outside the
22 facts raised by the pleadings should not be permitted.
23 The expenditure of time on irrelevant issues not raised by the operative pleadings
24 would raise the expenses of all parties, confuse the jury, and cause undue prejudice to Pacific
25 Union. Pacific Union anticipates that Defendants will attempt to raise its claims in connection
26 with the Los Angeles Action in the trial in this matter, or the claims asserted within the proposed
27 cross-complaint that Defendants are seeking leave to file. The Court should exclude any issues,
28 facts, or allegations that are extraneous to the issues raised by the operative pleading and
2
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT
1 Defendants’ answer to that pleading. Even if the Court grants Defendants leave to file the cross-
2 complaint at this stage, the cross-complaint will not be at issue and would not be ready to be
3 tried. Accordingly, the admission of such evidence regarding those issues would be unduly
4 prejudicial, confusing, and misleading and would necessitate the undue consumption of time.
5 Dated: July 28, 2022
6 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
7
8 By
SHANNON B. JONES
9 LINDSEY A. MORGAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
10 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
July 28, 2022
Case Filing Date
November 07, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222) 2 sbj@sbj-law.com 3 LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214) lam@sbj-law.com 4 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, California 94526 5 Telephone: (925) 837-2317 Facsimile: (925) 837-4831 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. 8 9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 11 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No. SCV0042080 ) 12 Plaintiff, ) MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT ) 13 v. ) TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE ) OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 14 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and ) beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated ) 15 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST ) DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. ) Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018 16 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The ) Trial Date: August 8, 2022 Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and ) 17 DOES 1-50, ) ) 18 Defendants. ) ) 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Through this Motion in Limine No. 6, Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION 22 INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Pacific Union”) requests an order to limit the trial to Causes of 23 Action in the operative Complaint. 24 Pacific Union anticipates that Defendant may attempt to introduce issues or 25 claims that are outside of the operative complaint and Defendant’s answer to this complaint in 26 this action, such as the claims brought by Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court 27 Case No. 19STCV25331, entitled Erik Ludwick v. Partners Trust Real Estate Brokerage & 28 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 1 Acquisitions, et al. (“Los Angeles Action”), or the proposed cross-complaint that Defendants are 2 currently seeking leave to file. 3 Such evidence is irrelevant to Pacific Union’s claims. Moreover, to the extent 4 that the Court grants Defendants leave to file their cross-complaint two court days before trial 5 commences, the cross-complaint will not be at issue and ready to be adjudicated. The admission 6 of such evidence would be unduly prejudicial, confusing, and misleading and would necessitate 7 the undue consumption of time. The Court should exclude all such evidence. 8 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9 Pacific Union hereby incorporates by reference their Statement of Facts In 10 Support of All Motions in Limine. 11 III. ARGUMENT 12 Evidence Code section 350 provides, “no evidence is admissible except relevant 13 evidence.” The California Supreme Court has held that evidence not pertinent to the issues 14 raised by the pleadings is immaterial and cannot be introduced. (Fuentes v. Tucker (1947) 31 15 Cal.2d 1, 4-7.) In order for evidence to be admissible, it must both correspondence with the 16 substance of the material allegations and be relevant to the issue sin dispute. (Decter v. 17 Stevenson Properties (1952) 39 Cal.2d 407, 419-420.) If a legal theory has not been raised in a 18 pleading, no facts supporting that theory can be raised at trial. (Evid. Code §§350, 403; see also 19 City of Stanton v. Cox (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1563.) Any new facts that are raised at trial 20 must be inextricably related to the facts alleged in the pleadings. (See General Credit Corp. v. 21 Pichel (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 844, 850.) Accordingly, any additional facts that are outside the 22 facts raised by the pleadings should not be permitted. 23 The expenditure of time on irrelevant issues not raised by the operative pleadings 24 would raise the expenses of all parties, confuse the jury, and cause undue prejudice to Pacific 25 Union. Pacific Union anticipates that Defendants will attempt to raise its claims in connection 26 with the Los Angeles Action in the trial in this matter, or the claims asserted within the proposed 27 cross-complaint that Defendants are seeking leave to file. The Court should exclude any issues, 28 facts, or allegations that are extraneous to the issues raised by the operative pleading and 2 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 1 Defendants’ answer to that pleading. Even if the Court grants Defendants leave to file the cross- 2 complaint at this stage, the cross-complaint will not be at issue and would not be ready to be 3 tried. Accordingly, the admission of such evidence regarding those issues would be unduly 4 prejudicial, confusing, and misleading and would necessitate the undue consumption of time. 5 Dated: July 28, 2022 6 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. 7 8 By SHANNON B. JONES 9 LINDSEY A. MORGAN Attorneys for Plaintiff, 10 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO LIMIT TRIAL TO CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT