Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

CAROLINE BARR-BROFELDT VS MILLER LAW. INC.. ET AL.

Motions in Limine – Tentative Ruling Defendants' Motions in Limine 1. Omnibus Motion (a) Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted as to settlement discussions and offers in this case. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion with this limitation. This ruling does not mean that plaintiff cannot produce evidence of settlement discussions with Nelmar Construction in the underlying case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEAN MCLEAN ET AL VS JOHN TROUNG ET AL

Rulings on Motions in Limine The Court’s rulings on the parties' various motions in limine are set forth below. Because of the large number of motions, and in the interest of time, the basis for each ruling is not always set forth in full (or at all). Generally, if the motion is granted without further explanation, it is granted on the basis advanced by the proponent of the motion. And if the motion is denied, generally it is denied on the grounds advanced by the party or parties opposing the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HAFFNER V POWER

To preclude evidence of improper character evidence including the Haffners disputes with their neighbors; evidence of disputed bills to third parties. DEFERRED. The evidence only comes in if the Haffners introduce claims or reliance damages such as they paid an attorney to do work on a property line dispute, than the property line dispute becomes relevant and we need to hear the evidence relating to the dispute.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2010

JOAN BOICE BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST VS. EMERITUS CORPORATION

Baty's statement and Joan Boice's treatment; (4) irrelevant because the alleged statement was made a year after Joan Boice left residence at Defendant's facility in December 2008; (5) unreliable because Ms. Rotella is biased against Emeritus; (6) has the potential to mislead, confuse and prejudice outweighing any probative value the statement may otherwise have; and (7) is improper character evidence. Plaintiffs oppose the motion arguing that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.