Document for ARNTSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, et al vs. GREGORY J DAVIS, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
     EIMER STAHL LLP
 2   99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 600
     San Jose, CA 95113-1605
 3   Telephone: (408) 889-1668
 4   Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com

 5   Attorney for Plaintiffs

 6

 7                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
 8

 9
      Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family        Case No. 22-CIV-01148
10    Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn         Consolidated with Case No. 23-CIV-01099
      Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang;
11                                                    Date: March 11, 2024
12                   Plaintiffs,                      Time: 2:00 p.m.
      v.                                              Dept. 24
13
      David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures    Date Action Filed: March 15, 2022
14    LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387
      Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe;      Hon. Jeffrey Finigan
15    Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC;
16    Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust;      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
      TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ            NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE
17    Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose          OR TESTIMONY IDENTIFYING
      Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings,        DAVID M. BRAGG AS A MILITARY
18    LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil;   PROFESSIONAL, VETERAN, OR
      Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20,                      FIREFIGHTING PROFESSIONAL;
19
                                                      MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
20                   Defendants.                      AUTHORITIES

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


                                   PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
 1          TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

 2          Please take notice that on March 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 24 of the Superior

 3   Court of California, County of San Mateo, located at 400 County Center, Redwood City,

 4   California, Plaintiffs will move in limine for an order preventing Defendants, their counsel, and all

 5   witnesses from introducing any evidence or testimony identifying Defendant David M. Bragg as

 6   a military professional, veteran, or firefighting professional. This motion is brought pursuant to

 7   Evidence Code sections 350 and 352 on the ground that this information is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’

 8   claims and Defendants’ defenses and any reference to it will create a substantial danger of undue

 9   prejudice. This motion is based on this notice of motion, the memorandum of points and authorities

10   filed herewith, and any arguments or evidence that may be presented at the time of hearing.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                    2
                                    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
 1                       MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

 2          I.      Legal Standard
 3          Evidence Code section 350 states that “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant

 4   evidence.” Relevant evidence is that which has a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any

 5   disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code § 210; People

 6   v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523.)

 7          Evidence Code section 352 further permits the Court in its discretion to “exclude evidence

 8   if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a)

 9   necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of

10   confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” (See also People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d

11   897, 904.)

12          This Court also has inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude “any kind of

13   evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary

14   exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” (Clemens v. Am. Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444,

15   451; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Super. Ct. (1998) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288.)

16          II.     Relevant Background
17          Plaintiffs understand that Bragg previously served as U.S. Marine and is a veteran.

18   Plaintiffs further understand that he has for several years been employed, and is presently

19   employed, by the Menlo Park Fire District. (Vierra Decl. ISO Mots. In Limine ¶ 3.)

20          III.    Reasons Why Evidence or Testimony Identifying David M. Bragg as a
                    Military Professional, Veteran, or Firefighting Professional Should be
21                  Excluded
22          First, Bragg’s military and firefighting history has no relevance to this action, which

23   concerns whether Defendants committed acts of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,

24   and civil theft in connection with his real estate LLCs. There is no plausible argument that Bragg’s

25   military and firefighting history has any “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact

26   that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350.) On that

27   ground alone, any evidence identifying Bragg as a Marine, veteran, or firefighting professional

28   should be excluded.

                                                   3
                                   PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
 1          Second, such evidence should independently be excluded because its probative value

 2   (none) is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create undue prejudice

 3   (substantial). (Evid. Code § 352.) Military and firefighting careers are highly respected by the

 4   general public, and jurors may be inclined to grant leniency to Bragg based on his prior and/or

 5   current employment even though they are irrelevant to this case. (See, e.g., InsiderMonkey, 5 Most

 6   Respected Professions in the US, http://tinyurl.com/265rlyh3 [identifying military officers and

 7   firefighters as the 5th and 3rd most respected profession in the US, respectively].)

 8                                            CONCLUSION

 9          Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to exclude any evidence

10   or testimony identifying Bragg as a military professional, veteran, or firefighting professional.

11

12
     Dated: _February 20, 2024_                            By: ______________________
13
                                                               Collin J. Vierra
14
                                                               Attorney for Plaintiffs
15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                    4
                                    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1