Preview
A JAMES M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898)
LAW OFFICE 0F JAMES M. DOMBROSKI
Post Office Box 751027
CA 94975
Petaluma,
Tel: (707) 762—7807
F
1
SAN METEBEQRTY
Fax: (707) 759-0419
'OCT -
5 2018
THOMAS I. SABERI, ESQ. (SBN 169652)
1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12
So. San Francisco, CA 94080
?coooxloumhwm
Telephone: (650) 588-2428
Facsimile: (650) 873—7046
Attorneys for Plaintiff
_
cwEés'm-
MPAs
\
M“”‘°’“"d"m
1421917
°'W3 and Authorities
inSupp! SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
1N AND FOR THE COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO
“'J'UNW ummu "m
I
ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294
14
Plaintiff? Complaint filed: 1 1/ 18/201 5
15
vs. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND
1e
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
17 INC., etc., et al.
NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
vavvvvvvvvvvvv
18 Defendants. THAT CARRIER WAS UNINSURED
"V" ’x
19 DATE: October 15, 2018 BY
A
FAA ,7
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
20 JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi
'
DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 21
21
22
In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba
23
Safe Auto Transport was named insured on Motor Truck Cargo policy of insurance with a limit
24
of $250,000.0.”
25
The amended response concludes, “Responding Party amends itsprevious response and
26 A
admits Request for Admission No. 3”.
27
In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence
28
1
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION 1N LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
A on the issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it t0
introduce further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will
unduly lengthen the trialand increase litigation expenses, and which pertains t0 an issue that is
no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission 0f the request and response into evidence, all
evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial.
O(OWVOU'l-DOJN
I
A MOTION IN LIMINE MAY BE GRANTED TO EXCLUDE
IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OR PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE
CODE, SECTION 352, WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS
MERELY CUMULATIVE, TIME CONSUMING AND
WOULD INCREASE LITIGATION COSTS.
There is n0 express statutory authority for motions in limine. But they are well
recognized in practice and by case law. (Clemens v. Amen'can Warranty C011 (1987) 193 Cal.
App.3d 444, 451, 238 Cal. Rptr. 339, 342)
Authority for such motions also may be implied from the court's inherent power to: a)
"provide for the orderly conduct 0f proceedings before it" (Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section
128(a)(3)); b) "control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice"
(Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128(a)(8)); c) exclude irrelevant evidence (Evidence Code,
Section 350); d) exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the
probability that its admission will consume undue time or create substantial danger of undue
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or mislead the jury (Evidence Code, Section 352); e) hear and
determine questions of admissibility of evidence out of the presence of hearing of the jury
(Evidence Code, Section 402(b)); and i) curb abuses and promote fair process (see M1
Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. SunCt. (People) (1988) 200 Cal. App.3d 272, 287, 245 Cal. Rptr.
‘
873, 884).
In addition, Evidence Code, Section 352 provides:
"The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative
value issubstantially outweighed by the probability that its
admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b)
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the
issues, 0r ofmisleading the jury."
2
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION 1N LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
_3
California trial judges have considerable discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to
exclude evidence if its probative value issubstantially outweighed by itsprejudicial effect.(
Michail v Fluor Mining Metals, Inc. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 284, 286, 225 Cal. Rptr. 403)
In the context of Evidence Code, Section 352, where the discretion of the trial court is
required to be applied, a balancing process is called for which requires consideration 6f the
relationship between the evidehce and the relevant inferences to be
O(OWNODCHAOJN
drawn from it.(Kessler v
@131 (1978) 77 Ca1.App.3d 284, 291, 143 Cal. Rptr. 496) Evidence Which merely encourages
speculation should be excluded in civil cases just as well as criminal cases. (People v Bush
(1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d 294, 307, 148 Cal. Rptr. 430; Atkins v Bisigier (1971) 16 Ca1.App.3d 414,
425, 94 Cal. Rptr. 49)
The question of remoteness of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.
(Mathes v Dudley (1931) 212 Cal. 58, 60 [297 P. 544]; Jennings v Arata (1 948) 83 Ca1.App.2d
143, 146 [188 P.2d 298].)
“Any matter admitted in Ijgsponse t0 a requestfor admission 2's
conclusively established
against the party making the adm'issz'on, unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment of
the admission under Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300...” (Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 13:182.)
“.. .Matz‘ers that are admitted 0r deemed admitted through [requestfor admissions]
discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being
contested through contradictory evidence. (St.Mary v. Superior Court (201 4) 223 Cal.App.4th
”
762, 775, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 5] 7; Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.410.) (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12
Ca1.App.5th 19, 30 [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 560] [internal quotes omitted].)
In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba
Safe Auto Transport was named insured 0n Motor Truck Cargo policy 0f insurance with a limit
of $250,000.0.”
Th: amendcd response concludes, “Responding Party amends its previous responée and
admits Request for Admission No. 3”.
In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence
on the issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it to
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 1N LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
,
--\
introduce further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will
N unduly lengthen the trial and increase lifigation expenses, and which pertains to an issue that is
(JO
no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission ofthe request and response into evidence, all
-b evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial.
U‘I
DATED: October i 2018.
G)
LA OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI'
V
m
(0 BY:
JAME M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ.
Atto ey for Plaintiff
mNODU‘l-thAOCOmVODU‘l-bQDN—‘O
NNNNMNNNNAA-xgé—xgg—ng
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
Preview
A JAMES M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. (SBN 56898) LAW OFFICE 0F JAMES M. DOMBROSKI Post Office Box 751027 CA 94975 Petaluma, Tel: (707) 762—7807 F 1 SAN METEBEQRTY Fax: (707) 759-0419 'OCT - 5 2018 THOMAS I. SABERI, ESQ. (SBN 169652) 1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12 So. San Francisco, CA 94080 ?coooxloumhwm Telephone: (650) 588-2428 Facsimile: (650) 873—7046 Attorneys for Plaintiff _ cwEés'm- MPAs \ M“”‘°’“"d"m 1421917 °'W3 and Authorities inSupp! SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 1N AND FOR THE COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO “'J'UNW ummu "m I ANDY SABERI, CASE NO. CIV 536294 14 Plaintiff? Complaint filed: 1 1/ 18/201 5 15 vs. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 1e AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LES STANFORD CHEVROLET CADILLAC, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE 17 INC., etc., et al. NUMBER TWO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE vavvvvvvvvvvvv 18 Defendants. THAT CARRIER WAS UNINSURED "V" ’x 19 DATE: October 15, 2018 BY A FAA ,7 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 20 JUDGE: Presiding Judge Susan Irene Etezadi ' DEPT: 18 — Courtroom 21 21 22 In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba 23 Safe Auto Transport was named insured on Motor Truck Cargo policy of insurance with a limit 24 of $250,000.0.” 25 The amended response concludes, “Responding Party amends itsprevious response and 26 A admits Request for Admission No. 3”. 27 In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence 28 1 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION 1N LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF A on the issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it t0 introduce further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will unduly lengthen the trialand increase litigation expenses, and which pertains t0 an issue that is no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission 0f the request and response into evidence, all evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial. O(OWVOU'l-DOJN I A MOTION IN LIMINE MAY BE GRANTED TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OR PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE, SECTION 352, WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS MERELY CUMULATIVE, TIME CONSUMING AND WOULD INCREASE LITIGATION COSTS. There is n0 express statutory authority for motions in limine. But they are well recognized in practice and by case law. (Clemens v. Amen'can Warranty C011 (1987) 193 Cal. App.3d 444, 451, 238 Cal. Rptr. 339, 342) Authority for such motions also may be implied from the court's inherent power to: a) "provide for the orderly conduct 0f proceedings before it" (Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 128(a)(3)); b) "control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice" (Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128(a)(8)); c) exclude irrelevant evidence (Evidence Code, Section 350); d) exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will consume undue time or create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or mislead the jury (Evidence Code, Section 352); e) hear and determine questions of admissibility of evidence out of the presence of hearing of the jury (Evidence Code, Section 402(b)); and i) curb abuses and promote fair process (see M1 Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. SunCt. (People) (1988) 200 Cal. App.3d 272, 287, 245 Cal. Rptr. ‘ 873, 884). In addition, Evidence Code, Section 352 provides: "The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value issubstantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, 0r ofmisleading the jury." 2 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION 1N LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF _3 California trial judges have considerable discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence if its probative value issubstantially outweighed by itsprejudicial effect.( Michail v Fluor Mining Metals, Inc. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 284, 286, 225 Cal. Rptr. 403) In the context of Evidence Code, Section 352, where the discretion of the trial court is required to be applied, a balancing process is called for which requires consideration 6f the relationship between the evidehce and the relevant inferences to be O(OWNODCHAOJN drawn from it.(Kessler v @131 (1978) 77 Ca1.App.3d 284, 291, 143 Cal. Rptr. 496) Evidence Which merely encourages speculation should be excluded in civil cases just as well as criminal cases. (People v Bush (1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d 294, 307, 148 Cal. Rptr. 430; Atkins v Bisigier (1971) 16 Ca1.App.3d 414, 425, 94 Cal. Rptr. 49) The question of remoteness of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. (Mathes v Dudley (1931) 212 Cal. 58, 60 [297 P. 544]; Jennings v Arata (1 948) 83 Ca1.App.2d 143, 146 [188 P.2d 298].) “Any matter admitted in Ijgsponse t0 a requestfor admission 2's conclusively established against the party making the adm'issz'on, unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission under Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300...” (Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 13:182.) “.. .Matz‘ers that are admitted 0r deemed admitted through [requestfor admissions] discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence. (St.Mary v. Superior Court (201 4) 223 Cal.App.4th ” 762, 775, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 5] 7; Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.410.) (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Ca1.App.5th 19, 30 [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 560] [internal quotes omitted].) In the case at bar, Request Number 3 stated, “In September/October 2015 Dedyk dba Safe Auto Transport was named insured 0n Motor Truck Cargo policy 0f insurance with a limit of $250,000.0.” Th: amendcd response concludes, “Responding Party amends its previous responée and admits Request for Admission No. 3”. In view of the admission of such request, there is no necessity for BJ to present evidence on the issue of whether Dedyk was insured as set forth in such request, and allowing it to 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 1N LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF , --\ introduce further evidence on the subject will pertain to an issue that is already determined, will N unduly lengthen the trial and increase lifigation expenses, and which pertains to an issue that is (JO no longer relevant. Except perhaps admission ofthe request and response into evidence, all -b evidence regarding the subject of said request should be excluded at trial. U‘I DATED: October i 2018. G) LA OF JAMES M. DOMBROSKI' V m (0 BY: JAME M. DOMBROSKI, ESQ. Atto ey for Plaintiff mNODU‘l-thAOCOmVODU‘l-bQDN—‘O NNNNMNNNNAA-xgé—xgg—ng 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO RE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO FACT THAT WAS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF