On March 16, 2021 a
Motion in Limine re: - #1-TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT
was filed
involving a dispute between
Solis, Javier,
and
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
General Motors Llc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ww FAXED
MARY ARENS MCBRIDE (SBN 282459)
marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC
1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A
Orange, CA 92867 SUPBRIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Telephone: +949 777-6032 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FRNARDINO DISTRICT
Facsimile: +714 844-9035
TROY D. MCMAHAN (SBN 148694) SEP 13 2023
tmcemahan@kslaw.com
6 KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: +1 415 318 1200
8 Facsimile: +1 415 318 1300
9 STEPHANIE A. LE (SBN 325428)
sle@kslaw.com
10 KI & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
I Los Angeles, CA 90071
phone: +1 213 443 4355
12 Facsimile: +1 213 443 4310
13 Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
17
18 JAVIER SOLIS, an individual, | CASE NO. CIV SB 2106801
19 Plaintiff, Assigned to the Hon. Gilbert Ochoa in
Department S24
20
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
221
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION IN
22 Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 LI NE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ANY
through 10, inclusive REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE
23 ARGUMENT
Defendant.
24
Complaint Filed: March 16, 2021
25 Trial Date: September 18, 2023
I
26
27
28
1
‘GM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. | TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT
1. Introduction
General Motors LLC (“GM”) moves this Court in /imine for an order precluding Plainuff,
his counsel, and his witnes es from any attempt to appeal improperly to the sympathies of jurors:
by invoking the so-called “Golden Rule.” i.e., that requesting the jurors put themselves in
Plaintiff's shoes Any such argument is unfitting under well-settled law that appeals to jurors”
6 sympathies by asking that they imagine themselves in the position of the Plaintiffor “in Plaintiff's
shoes” as improper
2. Argument
GM anticipates that Plaintiff may attempt to sway jurors by appealing to the so-called
10 “Golden Rule” argument. It is well settled, however, that appeals to jurors’ sympathies by asking
11 that they imagine themselves in the position of the Plaintiffor “in Plaintiff's shoes” are improper.
12 (Cassim v. Allstate Ins Co. (2004) 33 ‘al.4th 780, 796; Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co. (1966)
13 71 Cal App.3d 841, 860.) The so-called “Golden Rule” argument is improper because tt
14 encourages the jurors to exercise their subjective judgment and in essence become a personal
15 partisan for the injured party, rather than exercising an unbiased and unprejudiced opinion based
16 on the weight of the evidence. (Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 796-798.)
17 3. Conclusion
18 For these reasons, GM respectfully requests that the Court preclude Plaintiff from
19 introducing, referring, or mentioning evidence or making argument regarding how the jurors
20 would feel if the vehicle at issue belonged to them, or other iteration of the “Golden Rule”
21 argument.
22
DATED: September 12, 2023 KING & Sree LLP
23
24 By:
&
Lt plane me
TROY D. MCMAHAN
2525 STEPHANIE A. LE
26
Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
28
2
GM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT
Document Filed Date
September 13, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 16, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ww FAXED MARY ARENS MCBRIDE (SBN 282459) marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC 1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A Orange, CA 92867 SUPBRIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Telephone: +949 777-6032 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FRNARDINO DISTRICT Facsimile: +714 844-9035 TROY D. MCMAHAN (SBN 148694) SEP 13 2023 tmcemahan@kslaw.com 6 KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: +1 415 318 1200 8 Facsimile: +1 415 318 1300 9 STEPHANIE A. LE (SBN 325428) sle@kslaw.com 10 KI & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 I Los Angeles, CA 90071 phone: +1 213 443 4355 12 Facsimile: +1 213 443 4310 13 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 17 18 JAVIER SOLIS, an individual, | CASE NO. CIV SB 2106801 19 Plaintiff, Assigned to the Hon. Gilbert Ochoa in Department S24 20 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 221 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION IN 22 Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 LI NE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ANY through 10, inclusive REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE 23 ARGUMENT Defendant. 24 Complaint Filed: March 16, 2021 25 Trial Date: September 18, 2023 I 26 27 28 1 ‘GM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. | TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT 1. Introduction General Motors LLC (“GM”) moves this Court in /imine for an order precluding Plainuff, his counsel, and his witnes es from any attempt to appeal improperly to the sympathies of jurors: by invoking the so-called “Golden Rule.” i.e., that requesting the jurors put themselves in Plaintiff's shoes Any such argument is unfitting under well-settled law that appeals to jurors” 6 sympathies by asking that they imagine themselves in the position of the Plaintiffor “in Plaintiff's shoes” as improper 2. Argument GM anticipates that Plaintiff may attempt to sway jurors by appealing to the so-called 10 “Golden Rule” argument. It is well settled, however, that appeals to jurors’ sympathies by asking 11 that they imagine themselves in the position of the Plaintiffor “in Plaintiff's shoes” are improper. 12 (Cassim v. Allstate Ins Co. (2004) 33 ‘al.4th 780, 796; Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co. (1966) 13 71 Cal App.3d 841, 860.) The so-called “Golden Rule” argument is improper because tt 14 encourages the jurors to exercise their subjective judgment and in essence become a personal 15 partisan for the injured party, rather than exercising an unbiased and unprejudiced opinion based 16 on the weight of the evidence. (Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 796-798.) 17 3. Conclusion 18 For these reasons, GM respectfully requests that the Court preclude Plaintiff from 19 introducing, referring, or mentioning evidence or making argument regarding how the jurors 20 would feel if the vehicle at issue belonged to them, or other iteration of the “Golden Rule” 21 argument. 22 DATED: September 12, 2023 KING & Sree LLP 23 24 By: & Lt plane me TROY D. MCMAHAN 2525 STEPHANIE A. LE 26 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 28 2 GM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT