What is a Motion in Limine?

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

Traber Superior Court Judge Further Tentative Ruling on Cross-defendants Goulds’ Motions in Limine #3 and #1: Through their Motion in Limine # 3, Cross-defendants Goulds seek to exclude certain testimony from Lucille Goldin. The Court denied the motion in limine as to admissible testimony about the elder Goulds’ actions and statements regarding support for Cross-Defendants Goulds’ lifestyle and Cross-Defendants’ antagonism towards Kettler and Mr. Gould’s sister.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITY OF SANTA MONICA VS. CHIANG JUEI SUNG

Sung City of Santa Monica’s motion in limine no. 1 The City of Santa Monica’s motion in limine no. 1 seeking to exclude from trial witnesses and exhibits offered by Chaing Juei Sung as a discovery sanction is DENIED. Preliminarily, The City has failed to identify the specific discovery request(s) that called for Sung to disclose the identity of the new witness and the new exhibits now offered by Sung.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HELEN DUFFY VS VISEMER DE GELT LLC ET AL

The Phase 1 trial was conducted pursuant to the “Stipulation and Order Mooting Defendants’ Motion in Limine “N” And to Conduct Trial of Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Cause of Action in Lieu of Trial in the Related Unlawful Detainer Action,” (“Stipulated Order “N”), filed and entered by this Court on August 9, 2019. Plaintiff Helen Duffy (“Ms. Duffy”) appeared though her attorneys of record, Andrew J. Thomas, Esq., and Marcia Z. Gordon, Esq. Defendants Sol Feiner (“Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MADELINE MOORE VS DENNIS P RILEY ET AL

DISCUSSION: Motion for Summary Adjudication Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests judicial notice of (1) the court docket in the underlying litigation; (2) the order entered July 26, 2016 in the underlying litigation relieving Riley as counsel for Plaintiff; (3) Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1 in the underlying litigation; (4) Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 2 in the underlying litigation; (5) Plaintiff’s complaint in this action; (6) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint; (7) a minute

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MITCHELL V LENTS HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LENTS FORMER COUNSEL BY BLAKE WALTER DUNLAP, BLAKE WALTER DUNLAPINDEPENDENTEXECUTOR

Coppola to meet and confer on the parties’ motions in limine and for preparing joint pre-trial documents as required under rule 3401(4), including a joint statement, stipulations of agreed upon facts or legal issues, joint statement of claims and defenses, joint statement of the case, a joint witness and exhibit lists, jury instruction and verdict forms, etc. As a result, Mr. Williams contends he had to take on the responsibilities under rule 3401(4) on his own. On or about December 05, 2019, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOZEFOWICZ V. SUNNY HILLS RESTORATION, ET AL.

For instance, Plaintiff objects to fees for time on a motion for 128.7 sanctions that was never filed, excessive time for motions in limine, excessive time for reviewing files, time spent on a meritless motion to disqualify, and some other miscellaneous items. The court finds that a downward adjustment is appropriate for inefficiency, excessive, and unnecessary billing entries, including time spent on the motion for sanctions and motion to disqualify.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

EDUARDO MARTINEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Specifically, Defendant compares the fees Plaintiff requested for his motions in limine with the fees for filing and serving courtesy copies for his oppositions to Defendant’s motions in limine and contends Plaintiff’s own motions involved unreasonable costs. However, Defendant does not address how Plaintiff is double-charging for the same filings or specifically which costs Defendant objects to.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

They further coordinated on motions in limine and oppositions to Timed Out’s efforts to introduce other potential damages witnesses. (Vallejo Decl. ¶ 5.) They further worked with jury consultant Paulette Taylor for voir dire during trial on January 15–17, 2020. (Vallejo Decl. ¶ 5.) On January 21, 2020, Timed Out announced that it had reached a partial settlement with Prisma.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ERIC DEVEZIN VS CHUCK DORFMAN, ET AL.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT A MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO EXCLUDE IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS, TESTIMONY, AND EVIDENCE OF PSCYHOLOGICAL INJURIES AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AT TRIAL Date of Hearing: September 24, 2020 Trial Date: June 1, 2021 Department: W Case No.: 19VECV00001 Moving Party: Defendant Ezra Kamer Responding Party: Plaintiff Eric Devezin Notice: Proper BACKGROUND Plaintiff Eric Devezin (“Plaintiff”) alleges he was a tenant of a rent-controlled property located

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMBRIZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Defendant argues that the physical exhibits were not used at trial because of the court’s in limine ruling requiring only electronic exhibits be used, but that they were reasonably necessary for litigation. The court taxes half the costs. GRANT in the amount of $6,357.27. G. Other (Item 16) Travel and Lodging.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

JOHN J STEF VS PUEBLO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was excluded at trial, on the grounds it was irrelevant; (e) plaintiff’s copious pre-trial and at-trial briefing, including service of five motions in limine on four different dates, all of which had to be evaluated, and three of which had to be opposed, and the submission of three separate trial briefs (36 pages, 61 pages with 70 pages of exhibits attached, and 20 pages with 150 pages of exhibits attached), all of which had to be evaluated; (f) trial over six days, involving an

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

VAEA VS. MARRA

The Court further predicts that even if the parties cannot stipulate to something of this kind, it is likely that the Court itself will craft some method of reaching necessary legal decisions before trial is commenced, such as by ordering trial briefs addressing issues in limine and/or instructional issues. These topics can be discussed at the CMC now set for November 17, it being remembered that CMC means “case management conference.” Managing will be done.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CASILIO VS. VALENTINE

Pankey is free to make a motion in limine and obtain a ruling on that issue then. 2 – Granted. Of the four allegations challenged, this is the only one that is being used to establish liability rather than to establish facts or provide context. Leave to amend is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

EGAL SHAHBAZ VS SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.

To the extent Defendant’s request to exclude evidence at trial is essentially a motion in limine, such a motion can be brought “before or during trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY ALIMONTI VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORP

In this case, unlike many others, before the matter settled the parties actually prepared-for and went to trial, where the Court entertained nearly thirty-five motions in limine and numerous other trial motions. (See Decl. Steve Mikhov, ¶¶ 24-27.) After roughly two weeks, the trial exceeded the number of expected trial days, and several jurors became unavailable forcing the Court to declare a mistrial. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2020

M.F. VS. CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

CVCHS is free to make a motion in limine as to these subparagraphs at the time of trial. The court grants the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages. A prayer for punitive damages must be supported by factual allegations sufficient to support the legal conclusion that an employee of CVCHS acted despicably and with malice or oppression and that the conditions specified Civil Code § 3294(b) are met.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Kernan billed 22.8 hours for drafting an opposition to a motion in limine. Defense counsel avers that the parties were informed that the motions would not be reviewed because of the fee dispute. (Vanderpool Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 18.) Defense counsel also points out that Kernan claims to have spent 7.7 hours preparing the opposition on July 6, 2020 even though he did not receive the motion in limine until July 7, 2020. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Kernan billed 22.8 hours for drafting an opposition to a motion in limine. Defense counsel avers that the parties were informed that the motions would not be reviewed because of the fee dispute. (Vanderpool Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 18.) Defense counsel also points out that Kernan claims to have spent 7.7 hours preparing the opposition on July 6, 2020 even though he did not receive the motion in limine until July 7, 2020. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Conversely, GEICO insists it will disclose policy limits to the selected arbitrator and not allow the issue to be resolved by motion in limine. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against GEICO alleging a cause of action for declaratory relief. Defendant GEICO demurred to the Complaint which was overruled by the Court. GEICO thereafter filed its Answer alleging various affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

PAASCH BUSINESS GROUP INC VS. PRECISION AIRPARTS SUPPORT SERVICES INC

He stated that he spent 18.6 hours preparing an opposition to Paasch's motion for summary judgment, 4.5 hours preparing two motions in limine, and 3.5 hours preparing a trial brief. His hourly rate at the relevant time was $150. Discussion A party who "prevails" on an action on a contract containing an attorneys' fee provision may move for an award of such fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a).

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

DUBOC VS. IRVINE COMPANY, LLC

They involved motions in limine and expert witness testimony. In both cases expert testimony was properly excluded because there was no reasonable basis for the expert’s opinions that the plaintiffs had been exposed to mycotoxins. (Geffcken v. D'Andrea (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1311; Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-05.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL VS THE VOLLRATH C

This document was attached as an exhibit to one of AFTT Parties’ motions in limine filed in the Wisconsin Action. T. The Settlement Agreement and accompanying cover letter filed in the Wisconsin Action. U. The Order of Dismissal filed in the Wisconsin Action. V. The Docket for the Wisconsin Action as it appeared on December 10, 2019. As the court may take judicial notice of court records of other courts, (See Evid. Code, § 452(d)), Defendants’ requests for judicial notice is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LENNOX UNIFIED SCHOOL VS. PERKINS & WILL, INC.

., Seth Shuji Sakamoto, Randolph Carl Larsen, and Wendell Lee Vaugh, Jr.’s (“Defendants”) Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Consequential Damages TENTATIVE RULING Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Consequential Damages is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KENNETH L. CREAL; ET AL VS AMITISS NASIRI; ET AL

limine may be filed and existing motions in limine may not be opposed if not already done so.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

FERNANDO SANTIAGO LOPEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC ET AL

Defendant argues that the 3.7 hours block-billed for drafting 17 motions in limine and 0.7 hours reviewing them are unreasonable because the motions were copied from templates with virtually no modifications. (Opposition at p. 7.) The Court finds that these hours are reasonable. Defendant argues that the 6.7 hours for deposing Defendant’s person most knowledgeable should be reduced because the deposition would have been more efficiently handled by one of the associates who had already worked on this case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 88     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.