Motion,Ex Parte: PHILLIP GARCIA VS. CARRIE WILSON, IN HER CAPACITCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                nD

LAW OFFICES OF BENNY MARTIN
Benjamin Martin (SBN 257452)

657 Santa Clara Ave.

Venice CA, 90291 ELECTRONICALLY

Phone: (510) 227-4406 FILED

-_ 2 a el . Superior Court of California,
Email: knowyourightsinsf@ gmail.com County of San Francisco

08/07/2017

Attorneys for Plaintiff Phillip Garcia Clerk of the Court
BY:RONNIE OTERO

Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

PHILLIP GARCIA, an individual, Case No. CGC-14-538560

PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S
AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
9: TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT

)

)
Plaintiff, }
}
} EVIDENCE OR PREJUDICIAL
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.

ANGELO WILSON, an individual, et. al. EVIDENCE UNDER EVIDENCE

CODE § 352

Defendants. Motion in Limine 9 of 12

This motion seeks to preclude evidence made irrelevant by the dismissal of Plaintiff's breach
of contract cause of action, the trial court’s March 17, 2017, discovery order, as well as prejudicial
evidence with little or no probative value. The Motion is based upon the Court’s authority to exclude
evidence that is irrelevant or prejudicial. Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., (1970) 2 Cal.
3d 1, 17-18, fn.7. Only relevant evidence is admissible, and evidence that is more prejudicial than
probative should be excluded. Evidence Code $§ 210, 350, 352.

Prejudicial evidence to be excluded:

e The post-UD trial OSC re: sanctions generated by Judge Dorfman against Plaintiff's counsel
Benny Martin at the conclusion of the UD trial.
No sanctions were imposed, and the OSC is not relevant to any issue in this case.
© Plaintiffs notebook in which Plaintiff documented his noise complaints, and Plaintiff's e-
mails to himself in which he documented Mr. Markham’s noise.
Coo

PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9: TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT
EVIDENCE OR PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE § 352nD

e All audio and video recordings of Plaintiff except the recordings offered by Plaintiff to show
invasion of privacy.
These items are not relevant to any matter.
e Plaintiff's alleged drug use.
Any reference to drug use as be improper character evidence. Evid.Code, § 1101; People v. Mincey
(1992) 2 Cal 4th 408:

“Tt]he defense counsel offered to introduce evidence that Sandra B. had used
drugs and abused her children before the beating that resulted in James's death
... [T]he trial court granted the prosecution's motion in limine to exclude the
evidence because Sandra's abuse of the children has been conceded and
testified to and is not in issue ... Thus, the court ruled that evidence of Sandra's
drug use and child abuse at times unrelated to the date of James's death was
improper character evidence (Evid.Code, § 1101), and was irrelevant,
cumulative, and would unduly consume time.”

Any such evidence would also be inadmissible for impeachment purposes under Evid. Code § 786
(evidence of character traits other than honesty and veracity inadmissible to attack credibility of
witness); and under Evid. Code § 787 (specific instances of conduct inadmissible to attack credibility
of witness).

Matters made irrelevant as a result of dismissal of Plaintiff's breach of contract cause of action

¢ Noise complaints by Plaintiff;
¢ Noise complaints against Plaintiff;
e Whether Defendants failed to timely cash Plaintiff’s rent checks.

Matters Established by the Court’s March 17, 2017, Issue Sanctions Order

« The Defendant Trust’s motive in bringing the UD action was not based on nuisance;

e The Defendant Trust’s motive for seeking to recover possession of Plaintiff’s rental
unit was in knowing violation of San Francisco Administrative Code § 37.9;

e¢ The Defendant Trust acted in bad faith in attempting to coerce Plaintiff to vacate his
rental housing unit;

e = The Defendant Trust’s bad faith was in knowing violation of San Francisco
Administrative Code § 37.9.

Evidence and argument seeking to establish or disprove of these issues are not relevant, or are

cumulative. Issues of damages remains at issue.

Loe
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9: TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT
EVIDENCE OR PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE § 352nD

Accordingly, parties, counsels, and witnesses should be prohibited from referencing,
suggesting, or examining witnesses on these topics—including counsels’ opening statement. Lafrenz
v. Stoddard (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 1,9. And this also include voir dire: “For purposes of this section
an ‘improper question’ is any question which, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition the
prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or question the prospective jurors
concerning the pleadings or the applicable law....” C.C.P. § 222.5.

Ill. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons above-stated, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court preclude evidence

on matters already established, or on matters for which the prejudice outweighs the probative value.

Date: June 11, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF BENNY MARTIN

By:
BENNY MARTIN, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff

Lege
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9: TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT
EVIDENCE OR PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE § 352