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. 8 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE
17    Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose          OR TESTIMONY REGARDING
      Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings,        PLAINTIFFS’ PRIOR SETTLEMENT
18    LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil;   WITH KURTIS S. KLUDT;
      Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20,                      MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
19
                                                      AUTHORITIES
20                   Defendants.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


                                   PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
 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 evidence or testimony regarding Plaintiffs’ prior settlement with Kurtis

 6   S. Kludt. This motion is brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350 and 352 on the ground

 7   that this information is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses and any reference

 8   to it will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice and confusion of the issues. This motion

 9   is based on this notice of motion, the memorandum of points and authorities filed herewith, and

10   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


                                    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
 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          Kurtis S. Kludt is a former Defendant in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged that Kludt was

18   jointly and severally liable for causing Plaintiffs’ injuries. Mr. Kludt settled with Plaintiffs in

19   December 2022, and the Court approved the parties’ good-faith settlement after giving the

20   remaining Defendants due opportunity to object—which none did.

21          III.    Reasons Why Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Settlement With Kurtis S. Kludt Should
                    Be Excluded
22
            First, Plaintiffs’ settlement with Mr. Kludt has no relevance to their claims against the
23
     remaining Defendants, which Plaintiffs must independently prove at trial. And joint and several
24
     liability is expressly recognized by California law. (Civ. Code § 1430–32.) Under joint and several
25
     liability, Plaintiffs may seek the full amount of their damages from any and all Defendants, except
26
     that Plaintiffs may collectively enforce their judgment(s) only up the point where they satisfy their
27
     total joint and several judgment from any combination of Defendants. (Id.) That is, they may
28


                                    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
 1   recover none or all of their joint and several judgment from any Defendant, but may not “double-

 2   recover” from the Defendants. (Id.) The Defendants, meanwhile, may seek contribution from each

 3   other for joint and several judgments. (Id.) Thus, while Plaintiffs’ settlement with Mr. Kludt bears

 4   legal significance in the manner in which they may enforce any judgment(s) post-trial, the

 5   settlement has no “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence

 6   to the determination of the action” as to the remaining Defendants. (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350.)

 7          Second, such evidence should independently be excluded because its probative value

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

 9   (Evid. Code § 352.) The jury may believe that because the Plaintiffs also obtained a significant

10   settlement from Mr. Kludt, they should not be entitled to any further recovery, even if they agree

11   that Defendants committed fraud, breached their fiduciary duties, etc.

12          Third, there is also a substantial risk that such evidence would confuse or mislead the jury.

13   The jury may believe that because the Plaintiffs already obtained a significant settlement in this

14   case, they are not entitled to any further recovery and/or the jury must reduce the award by the

15   amount for which Plaintiffs already settled. But that is not how joint and several liability works:

16   the jury should award the total damages to which they believe Plaintiffs are entitled (including as

17   to claims that were not even asserted in the complaint that was operative when they settled with

18   Mr. Kludt, including those for which Plaintiffs now seek treble damages), and Plaintiffs will

19   subsequently be able to recover only the amount of that judgment that has not already been

20   recovered from Mr. Kludt.

21          That this evidence should be excluded is also supported by the collateral source rule, which

22   provides that when an injured party may recover from an independent source, that evidence should

23   not be introduced. (Arambula v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1009; Hrnjak v. Graymar, Inc.

24   (1971) 4 Cal.3d 725, 729; Helfend v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 6.)

25          Practically speaking, this case should proceed as follows: The jury should decide if

26   Defendants are liable, on what counts, and for how much. Once a verdict is obtained, the Court

27   will enter the final judgment to give effect the jury’s verdict. For any counts for which Plaintiffs

28   already recovered jointly and severally from Kurtis Kludt, the Court in its final judgment should


                                    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
 1   state the amount that remains available for Plaintiffs to recover from the liable Defendants. Put

 2   simply, the jury does not need to and should not perform these calculations, and thus should not

 3   receive information about Plaintiffs’ settlement with Kurtis Kludt, which could confuse and

 4   prejudice them but which is not relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ case against the remaining

 5   Defendants.

 6                                            CONCLUSION

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

 8   or testimony regarding Plaintiffs’ prior settlement with Kurtis S. Kludt.

 9

10

11

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

15   Attorney for Plaintiffs

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


                                   PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8