Motion-Secondary: Deborah Kelly Garland Peric vs. Lotus Hospitality II, Inc., et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   Nikolaus W. Reed, Esq. (SBN 259951)
     Law Office of Nikolaus W. Reed
     Pier 40, Suite 7
 2   San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415/940-7766
 3   Fax: 415/940-7706
     Email: Nik@nwrlaw.com
 4
     Attorney for Plaintiff, DEBORAH KELLY GARLAND PERIC
 5
                        SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 6
                                   FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
 7                                      UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

 8                                                       Case No: 21-CIV-04971
     DEBORAH KELLY GARLAND PERIC,
 9                                                       Unlimited Jurisdiction
                     Plaintiff,
10                           v.
                                                             PLAINTIFF DEBORAH KELLY
11   LOTUS HOSPITALITY II, INC.; DOES 1 to                   GARLAND PERIC’S OPPOSITION
                                                             TO DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE
     50,                                                     #1 re BAJA INSTRUCTION
12
                             Defendants
13

14                                                           Trial Date: 3-26-24

15

16            Plaintiff hereby opposes Defendant’s motion in limine titled “MOTION IN LIMINE

17   AND ORDER TO PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF BAJI 15.10 WHEN DEFENDANT

     SETTLES WITH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER.”
18
              I.     ARGUMENT
19
                     A. Defendant has not settled with the worker’s compensation carrier.
20
              Despite the title of Defendant’s motion, there has been no settlement with the worker’s
21
     compensation carrier, so it would appear that the motion is irrelevant and moot based upon that
22   alone.

23

24


      PLAINTIFF’S OPP. DEF. MIL 1 - 1
                                                                LAW OFFICE OF NIKOLAUS W. REED
 1
                     B. California has already established the CACI instructions as the standard
 2                       instructions.
 3          Deviation from the California standard instructions approved by the judicial counsel is a

 4   recipe for the introduction of error resulting in an appeal of the outcome of the trial. The Court

     should provide the jury the CACI approved instructions only.
 5
            II.      CONCLUSION
 6
            The instruction is irrelevant, moot and likely to create the introduction of an appealable
 7
     issue. The instruction should be denied.
 8

 9   Dated: 2-4-24                      LAW OFFICE OF NIKOLAUS W. REED

10                                             /s/ Nikolaus W. Reed, Esq.
                                            By:
11                                                  Nikolaus W. Reed, Esq.
                                                    Attorney for Plaintiff
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


      PLAINTIFF’S OPP. DEF. MIL 1 - 2
                                                                LAW OFFICE OF NIKOLAUS W. REED
                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,                                  FOR COURT USE ONLY
                    COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
 Deborah Kelly Garland Peric v. Lotus Hospitality II, Inc.
 ATTORNEY(S) NAME AND ADDRESS
 Nikolaus W. Reed, Esq. (SBN 259951)
 Law Office of Nikolaus W. Reed
 40 Pier, Suite 7, San Francisco, CA 94107
 Phone: 415/940-7766
 ATTORNEY(S) FOR:                          HEARING: DATE-TIME-DEPT       CASE NUMBER
 Plaintiff, Deborah Kelly Garland
 Peric                                                                   21-CIV-04971


                                   DECLARATION OF SERVICE
                                 [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1013A and 2015.5]
           I, the undersigned, declare:
        I am, and was at the time of service of the papers herein referred to, over the age of 18
years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 40 Pier, Suite 7, San Francisco, CA
94107.
        I served the following document(s):
           1.   Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1
           2.   Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #2
           3.   Declaration of Nikolaus W. Reed
           4.   Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine #1
           5.   Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine #3

           on the parties in this action addressed as follows:
                              Malcolm D. Donaldson Esq. – SBN 185613
                              LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT C STRATMAN
                                          P.O. BOX 258829
                                    OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73125
                       (Attorney for Defendant, LOTUS HOSPITALITY II, INC)
_ X__ BY EMAIL: norcal.legal@farmersinsurance.com,
      malcolm.donaldson@farmersinsurance.com, amanda.ball@farmersinsurance.com
_ ___ BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated above, on
      XXXXX. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing
      correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
      in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is
      presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
      after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
On 2-5-24
                                                                      NIKOLAUS W. REED




                                              PROOF OF SERVICE                                      1
***/_POS