On March 15, 2022 a 92359Plain00ed84 was filed involving a dispute between Arntsen Family Partnership, Lp, Arntsen, Robert, Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship, Ho, John, Huang, Quanyu, Lee, Mary, and Black Horse Holdings, Llc, Bragg, David M, Caproc Iii, Llc, Davis, Gregory J, Huang, Quanyu, Huish, Dale, Justesen, Jason, Kludt, Kurtis Stuart, Mclan Trust, Monks Family Trust, Oneil, Scott, Paramont Capital, Llc, Paramont Woodside, Llc, Silicon Valley Real Ventures, Llc, Stoker, Diane, Stoker, Phil, Svrv 385 Moore, Llc, Svrv 387 Moore, Llc, Teh Capital, Llc, Wild Rose Irrevocable Trust, Wolfe, Kevin, Wz Partners Llc, for (16) Unlimited Fraud in the District Court of San Mateo County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
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. 6 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE 17 Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose OR TESTIMONY RELATING TO Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings, PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL 18 LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil; CONDITION; MEMORANDUM OF Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 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 regarding Plaintiffs’ financial condition. 6 This motion is brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350 and 352 on the ground that this 7 information is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses and any reference to it will 8 create a substantial danger of undue prejudice and confusion of the issues. This motion is based 9 on this notice of motion, the memorandum of points and authorities filed herewith, and any 10 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. 6 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 Defendants have not yet asked directly, but have come close, to inquiring directly into 18 Plaintiffs’ financial condition in written and oral discovery. 19 III. Reasons Why Evidence Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Condition Should be Excluded 20 First, Plaintiffs’ financial condition has no relevance to this action, which concerns whether 21 Defendants committed acts of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil theft in 22 connection with his real estate LLCs. Thus, Plaintiffs financial condition has no “tendency in 23 reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the 24 action.” (Civ. Code § 350.) 25 Second, such evidence should independently be excluded because its probative value is 26 substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create undue prejudice. (Evid. 27 Code § 352.) If any juror(s) perceive(s) any Plaintiff(s) as wealthy, they may be less inclined to 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 1 award them monetary damages regardless of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. But Plaintiffs’ 2 financial condition is simply irrelevant to any claims they are asserting and any of Defendants’ 3 defenses. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to exclude any evidence 6 relating to Plaintiffs’ financial condition. 7 8 Dated: _February 20, 2024_ By: ______________________ 9 Collin J. Vierra 10 11 Attorney for Plaintiffs 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6