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

126-150 of 2217 results

DELISI VS WAGNER

Plaintiff filed four motions in limine as well as a trial brief. Wagner filed a tardy motion in limine. The court addressed those in a written ruling (ROA 307). The trial began on Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A jury was selected after superficial voir dire by the parties, and pre-instructed. Opening statements were given, and evidence began on November 13 and concluded on November 14. The jury heard from six witnesses and was exposed to about 17 exhibits. Mr. Wagner was a handful during trial.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AHOURA VAHEDI VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

THE COURT NOTES THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DOCUMENTS REGARDING A MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THUS, THERE IS NO TENTATIVE RE SUCH MOTION. THE TENTATIVE RE THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER APPEARS BELOW. THE PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL. ahoura vahedi, Plaintiff, vs. state of california, et al. Defendants. Case No.: BC 672229 Hearing Date: March 16, 2020 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DELISI VS WAGNER

Plaintiff filed four motions in limine as well as a trial brief. Wagner filed a tardy motion in limine. The court addressed those in a written ruling (ROA 307). The trial began on Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A jury was selected after superficial voir dire by the parties, and pre-instructed. Opening statements were given, and evidence began on November 13 and concluded on November 14. The jury heard from six witnesses and was exposed to about 17 exhibits. Mr. Wagner was a handful during trial.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SUPERIOR COURT VS. GEICO CASE NO CVDATE MARCH TIME AM LINE NUMBER

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.) On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed this 22-page Complaint against GEICO alleging a cause of action for declaratory relief.11 II. Analysis. A. Request of GEICO for a Second Defense Medical Exam. The defense medical examination with Dr. Chen, M.D. took place on 26 July 2019. Dr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

WOOD VS ESTATE OF MARIAN KUBIC

The $1,110.24 amount is comprised of the 1/10/17 CMC Statement, the two motions to compel further responses as to Dennis Wood, the two motions to compel further responses to Richard Wood, the notice of taking these discovery motions off calendar, the costs related to the Motion for Summary Judgment brought against Plaintiffs, and the Motion in Limine and Opposition to Motion in Limine concerning Plaintiffs' case in chief.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE PALM GROVE LLC V. HIDDEN OAKS RANCH LLC

Trial Briefs, in limine motions, witness lists, exhibit lists all due Friday March 13. Background The case was on calendar on 2/25/20; at that time the Court said in its extensive tentative ruling that: “Plaintiff’s Contentions: The motion for trial preference was filed 1/23/20; the Court summarizes here; the case is a Commercial Unlawful Detainer action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

DERMOT GIVENS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Defendants are not to refer to these documents or charges absent further order of the Court P-2: TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO TH RESTRAINING ORDER AS “VALID” Plaintiff asked the Court to preclude defendants from referring to the temporary restraining order in question as “valid.” Plaintiff, however, apparently intends to argue that the temporary restraining order was not valid.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

VANESSA MORALES VS WAG LABS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

., motions for summary judgment and/or motions in limine), which may have eliminated Plaintiff’s claim, or barred evidence necessary to prove her claim; (3) the risk that the Court would exercise its discretion under PAGA to reduce the maximum civil penalties available by statute; (4) the chances of a favorable verdict being reversed on appeal; and (5) the difficulties attendant to collecting on a judgment; e.g., solvency issues.” (Motion p. 9:19-26.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GALLI VS CARPENTER

Nor has either party submitted any other document that might be submitted in anticipation of a jury trial such as proposed jury instructions, in limine motions, or a trial brief.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RICK FOWLER VS. GOLDEN PACIFIC BANCORP INC

., protective orders, in limine orders, and orders sustaining evidentiary objections. Granted, the court in Tritek noted that an order compelling disclosure of privileged corporate records was “problematic” because doing so would afford access to documents the director “could not obtain via discovery[.]” Again, however, the records in Tritek were within the attorney-client privilege, records that are never discoverable absent a valid waiver, and which are not at issue in the case at bench.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

ELITE OF LOS ANGELS INC VS CRYSTAL VISION ENTERPRISES LLC

Motions in Limine Plaintiffs Elite of Los Angeles, Inc. and San Diego Testing Services, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") No. 1 (ROA # 180): To exclude witnesses from the courtroom until his or her testimony is completed – GRANT. No. 2 (ROA # 181): To exclude irrelevant evidence concerning any purported condition precedent relating to sub-section 5.9.3 of the Operating Agreement of Defendant Crystal Vision Enterprises, LLC dba Hamilton College Consulting ("Defendant") – DENY.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

MARLAINA FIGUEROA ET AL VS JUAN J PADILLA-LOZA ET AL

PADILLA-LOZA BC706612 TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE The Court has reviewed five MIL’s from the plaintiffs and one by the defendants. The Court’s tentative rulings are as follows: Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1 – Exclude Evidence Plaintiff Was Referred to Doctors by an Attorney or Reference to Plaintiff Treating on A Lien The Court will deny this motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

BUCHER V. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Additionally, any potential undue prejudice to WDPR from the purported “me too” witnesses that plaintiff intends to present may be resolved through other means, such as motions in limine. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

MADELINE MOORE VS DENNIS P RILEY ET AL

After the filing of a motion in limine seeking to exclude Wallace’s testimony and an opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s successor counsel advised her to take the settlement offer. (Defendants’ SS No. 39.) Plaintiff did so, however, before the court had ruled on the motion in limine to exclude Wallace. (Defendants’ SS No. 42-44.) With this evidence, Defendants have met their initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff cannot show but-for causation and damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

BUCHER V. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.

Additionally, any potential undue prejudice to WDPR from the purported “me too” witnesses that plaintiff intends to present may be resolved through other means, such as motions in limine. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

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

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

    Mar 04, 2020

SPITZFADEN VS FCA US LLC

Plaintiff filed 14 motions in limine. ROA 97-111. Chrysler filed six. ROA 123-131. Opposition papers were also filed. ROA 133-146; 149-155. The court reviewed the papers, and prepared written tentative rulings. ROA 169. The parties then settled the case, subject to a motion for attorneys' fees and costs by plaintiff's counsel. Ibid. The motion was calendared by plaintiff for December 6, 2019. ROA 168. Then it was re-calendared by plaintiff for January 24, 2020. ROA 171-172.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JERNIGAN V BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION

Plaintiffs are free to renew this Motion in limine at the trial of this case. Similarly, Defendant is free to interpose objections to a renewed Motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JERNIGAN V BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION

Plaintiffs are free to renew this Motion in limine at the trial of this case. Similarly, Defendant is free to interpose objections to a renewed Motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JERNIGAN V BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION

Plaintiffs are free to renew this Motion in limine at the trial of this case. Similarly, Defendant is free to interpose objections to a renewed Motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JERNIGAN V BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION

Plaintiffs are free to renew this Motion in limine at the trial of this case. Similarly, Defendant is free to interpose objections to a renewed Motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JERNIGAN V BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION

Plaintiffs are free to renew this Motion in limine at the trial of this case. Similarly, Defendant is free to interpose objections to a renewed Motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUAN C. JIMENEZ CARBAJAL VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, in which the court of appeal found the trial court had improperly granted a motion for new trial in an action claiming violation of the Song Beverly Act, finding that the trial court had properly denied a motion in limine to exclude evidence “of any vehicle other than plaintiff’s truck,” and noting that the evidence had included the opinions of an expert that the transmission in the vehicle was defective before the consumer purchased the truck, based on “the fact

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE VS JOSE ANTONIO ALATORRE ET AL

Finally, if the records are not relevant or if the probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudice, the trial court can exclude them pursuant to a motion in limine. Discoverability and admissibility are two separate issues. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is a compelling interest requiring disclosure of the tweets at issue that is not outweighed by Alatorre’s privacy interests. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to quash is denied.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

SARAH STRASSBURG V. GEORGE MANURAS

Trial briefs, witness lists, exhibit lists and in limine motions due one week in advance of the hearing. The request for forensic fees is denied without prejudice. Analysis: The case was last on calendar on 12/17 when the case was continued to 2/25. Mr. Capritto filed a Notice of Intent to Present Oral Evidence on 2/10; estimates eight hours of testimony. The Court has read the declaration of Mr. Roberson dated 2/12/20. A Status Report was filed by Mr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 89     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.