What is a Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to?

There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to exclude reference to" is an issue. e.g.,

  • tax information
  • potentially prejudicial issues during voir dire
  • settlements or settlement discussions
  • insurance coverage
  • past criminal conduct
  • wealth or poverty of parties
  • personal injury litigation
  • prior counsel, or change in counsel
  • documents not produced at deposition
  • California Workers' Compensation benefits or whether Plaintiff is entitled to receive such benefits
  • attorneys’ fees
  • increased cost of vehicles

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude Reference to

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude Reference to

76-100 of 2234 results

DUFF VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC

as defendant's specific objections to certain billing, the following hours do not appear reasonably incurred, and thus will be reduced: 97.7 hours for reviewing transcripts and preparing cross examination of Pat Dalhberg will be reduced by 67 hours. 62.3 hours for reviewing transcripts and preparing cross examination for George Krzyanowski will be reduced by 40 hours. 151 hours for preparing trial exhibits will be reduced by 111 hours. 169.2 hours for preparing and responding and arguing on motions in limine

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHNSON VS MENDOZA

s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Carolyn Velotta or, in the alternative, Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony at Trial is denied. The court finds that the physician-patient privilege applies to Ms. Velotta's medical history to which the patient-litigant exception does not apply. In addition, the court does not find that Ms. Velotta waived privilege. All requests for sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEAN NICHOLE BOLLINGER VS LSG SKY CHEFS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 808, 811 [prejudice not shown by need to prepare motions in limine, enlarged exhibits, and jury instructions unless inadequate time also shown].) Rather, the prejudice that must be shown is “prejudice from the granting of relief from waiver not prejudice from the jury trial.” (Winston v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 600, 602, 603 [fact that it takes longer to try a jury case is not prejudice from granting relief from waiver].)

  • Hearing

LOS ANGELES BY-PRODUCTS CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALMAT CO.

Unclean Hands With respect to the doctrine of unclean hands “[t]he rule is settled in California that whenever a party who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith or other equitable principle in is prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf and acknowledge his right, or to afford him any remedy.” (Moriarty v. Carlson (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 51, 55.)

  • Hearing

JACQUELINE VIDAL VS. PEOPLE'S FINANCIAL, INC., ET AL.

.: TC029153 Matter on calendar for: Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Trial Tentative ruling: Background Plaintiff Jacqueline Vidal alleges defendants People’s Financial, Inc., Michael Lee, and Adrian Jang (erroneously sued as Adrian Jung) failed to pay her wages when she worked as secretary for People’s Financial. Adrian Jung and Michael Lee allegedly are the owners. Vidal is self-represented. Defendant Jang now moves to bifurcate his statute of limitations defense. The motion is opposed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HAMER VS CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

The court makes its ruling without prejudice to a later motion for similar relief through summary adjudication of issues or in limine motions at trial. City’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED, as the referenced exhibits were not included therewith. City is ordered to Answer within 15 days. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of these rulings.

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING FOR ITSELF AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN DAY SCHOOLS, INC., ET AL.

Any issues in terms of the scope of evidence or the issues on which findings might be requested in a Phase 1 trial can be addressed via motions in limine.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ENCHEV VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

In Donlen the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a manufacturer's motion in limine to "exclude evidence of other vehicles and of the nonwarranty repair." (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 154.) The court found testimony from an expert regarding issues in transmissions in other F–450 trucks was not prejudicial. (Id.) Evidence of similar issues in other vehicles of the same make, model, and year could tend to show, at a minimum, VWGoA likely had knowledge of the issues.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

MORAYMA A RUIZ VS RIGOBERTO ROMO ET AL

Defendants made their initial appearance on May 9, 2018 and the parties have filed their motions in limine in preparation for trial. “The general rule is that a party seeking a change of venue must act within a reasonable time.” (Newman v. Sonoma County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 625, 628.) Defendants have unreasonably delayed seeking a transfer of this action and the contention that Defendants hoped the case would settle does not excuse the delay. (Mo. at 5-6.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS JESSE E. FRENCH, ESQ.,, ET AL.

Garcia’s attorneys failed to oppose any of the defense’s motions in limine, and instead stipulated to each of the motions. (SAC, ¶ 36.) Garcia also alleges that at trial, her attorneys failed to examine any of the appropriate witnesses with regard to the content of her medical records or her medical costs, and as a result, those records were not admitted into evidence. (SAC, ¶ 39.)

  • Hearing

AMIR MOSTAFAVI VS ERIC KINGSLEY ET AL

Defendants also contend that they will be prejudiced because a jury trial would deprive them of the benefit from the work they have already done to prepare for the bench trial, including filing motions in limine, a trial brief, witness lists, and exhibit lists. (Ibid.) Plaintiff does not adequately explain why he did not post jury fees or seek relief before the prior trial date. Plaintiff states only that because the Court did not order him to do so on September 11, 2019, he failed to post the jury fee.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FORD V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154-155 [trial court properly denied motions in limine to exclude other vehicle and non-warranty repair evidence.].) Request for Production Nos. 10-12, 20, 23-26, 37, 38 and 40-75 Plaintiff seeks customer care, warranty and repurchase policies, procedures and practice (Request Nos. 10-12. 20 and 23-26).

  • Hearing

EDWIN D. CALDERON VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In Donlen, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude testimony about other vehicles because the testimony Defendant sought to exclude pertained to a type of transmission installed in Plaintiff’s vehicle as well as the other vehicles the expert testified to. (Id. at 154.) As such, the Court of Appeal found this evidence probative and not unduly prejudicial. (Id.)

  • Hearing

KEITH V. LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Certain Underwriters may raise this trial issue in any appropriate and properly noticed motion or motion in limine. Certain Underwriters shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

DAWN WOOD VS OLSON URBAN HOUSING LLC

Defendant Olson Urban Housing, LLC dba The Olson Company may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder, pursuant to the First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, effective as of April 16, 2018, to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial. Defendant Olson Urban Housing, LLC dba The Olson Company is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

KARLA GUERRA ET AL VS PREETI CHAUDHARY M D ET AL

Motion in Limine The motion in limine to exclude Plaintiffs’ cumulative expert testimony at trial is CONTINUED to the trial setting conference date on September 9, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. to be continued to the scheduled trial date and heard and decided by the court assigned to conduct the trial of this action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

URBINA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

., defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 as to the expert Miller issue and/or associated with the deposition of expert Miller…Plaintiff’s counsel caused that issue.” (Minute Order of 10/28/19.) There is a billing entry for attorney Gonzales of .2 for preparing an opposition to motion in limine #2, amounting to $80. There was also time spent on 10/23/19, arguing motion in limine #2. It is included in the 13.5 hours spent in court or preparing for hearings.

  • Hearing

MEDICAL ACQUISITION COMPANY INC VS. TRI CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT

Instead, in connection with the upcoming court trial to address any "damages resulting from Tri-City's abandonment of the eminent domain proceeding" (Court of Appeal opinion at page 15), the Court invites the parties to file motions in limine to define the scope of that trial.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA INC. VS CITY OF IRWINDALE

At the outset, the court determines that the subject request is the proper subject of a motion in limine. “A motion in limine, which is a commonly used tool brought at the beginning of trial when evidentiary issues are anticipated by the parties, is designed to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party.” (Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1214.)

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

To the extent the motion is entitled a motion in limine, the argument is not clearly stated in the motion with respect to a motion in limine, which is objected to by defendant in the opposition. The Court will not consider on this motion the request for such relief, and also will not consider the request in the opposition for the Court to make in limine rulings without a proper noticed motion. RULING: Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

PAEZ VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Paez filed a motion in limine relating to the past employment event. The court will not address the merits of that motion at this time. Mr. Paez should not independently file anything while he is represented by counsel. In addition, the motion is premature.

  • Hearing

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

Further, as the operative pleading contained a request for civil penalties, , Ford's purported belief that Plaintiffs waived the right to civil penalties by failing to provide proper discovery responses was sufficient to permit Ford to evaluate whether to bring a motion in limine to exclude the claim for civil penalties.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

Further, as the operative pleading contained a request for civil penalties, , Ford's purported belief that Plaintiffs waived the right to civil penalties by failing to provide proper discovery responses was sufficient to permit Ford to evaluate whether to bring a motion in limine to exclude the claim for civil penalties.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CANDICE BALISI VS FCA US LLC

Finally, Defendant asserts that the 3.7 hours that Plaintiff’s Counsel spent drafting four form motions in limine are excessive. (Kiridjian Decl. Ex. E.) The court notes that the motions in limine do appear substantially similar and do appear to be form motions for the most part. Accordingly, the court reduces these hours by 1.2 hours.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 90     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.