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

151-175 of 2217 results

STEPHEN PROULX AND ANDREA NEAL

Trial briefs, witness lists, exhibit lists and in limine motions due one week in advance of the hearing. Analysis The case was last on calendar on 12/17. The matter was continued to 2/25/2020, for an Evidentiary Hearing with the observation by the Court that dates will be set at that time. Counsel for Respondent filed a Status Report; case involves the issue of where the minor child will go to school for the 2020/2021 school year.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

THE PALM GROVE LLC V. ADAM PIROZZI

All trial documents including hearing briefs, witness lists, exhibit lists, in limine motions, due March 3, 2020 (courtesy copied to the Court). 3. The Court urges counsel to consider mediating at least the UD phase of this case with Lol Sorenson who has had good success with very contentious and complicated cases like this, particularly when there are very experienced lawyers; obviously the sooner you mediate the better.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

JEFF POMARICO VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

.: BC622166 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE]RULING RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. This is an action for medical malpractice. The fact facts relating to this action have been set forth in prior rulings. The purpose of this ruling is to address the motions in limine that have been filed by the parties.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT

The issue in Elliot was whether to grant a motion in limine to exclude from trial the testimony from two expert witnesses on the ground their testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact. The court granted the motion, finding neither witness had expertise that was relevant to the evaluation of housing discrimination claims. That is not this case. Finally, CMTA cites one page from the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT

The issue in Elliot was whether to grant a motion in limine to exclude from trial the testimony from two expert witnesses on the ground their testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact. The court granted the motion, finding neither witness had expertise that was relevant to the evaluation of housing discrimination claims. That is not this case. Finally, CMTA cites one page from the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

ELVIA A ESPINOZA VS LAX IN FLITE SERVICES LLC

. , no motions in limine . . . , and only minimal trial preparation.” (Declaration of Brian D. Peters ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also had only limited success in this case, as discussed above. Plaintiff’s complaint had seven causes of action, in connection with which she sought damages “estimated to be no less than $100,000.” (Complaint, Prayer for Relief.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE MANOR V. SIMMONS

On October 25, 2019 defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the seven day notice to comply with rules and regulations on the ground that defendant complied with the notice within 24 hours of service, leaving no ground to terminate defendant’s tenancy. On November 13, 2019 the action was dismissed without prejudice upon request of plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

CSIZMADI VS OLVERA

The Court determines that work performed on the motions in limine were not reasonable in this matter inasmuch as it was a bench trial. The Court deducts three hours as a reasonable amount of time for the in limine matters. The Court determines that a total amount of 28.2 hours to be reasonable for this litigation.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VITO ROBERTO VS FCA US LLC

Motions in Limine Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel billed a total of 3.2 hours for motions in limine prior to meeting and conferring and were billed even though several of them were stipulated. (Opp., p. 9:13-22.) In reply, Plaintiff argues that it was Defendant who failed to meet and confer with his counsel during the course of litigation and during discussions regarding joint trial documents, Defendant did not raise any issues regarding the motions in limine. (Reply, p. 5:8-14.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

PATRICK SOON-SHIONG VS SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Buchwald issued various evidentiary rulings on motions in limine filed by the District Attorney. (Birts, supra at 56.) The District Attorney then refiled the same charge against Birts and filed a CCP § 170.6 challenge against Judge Buchwald in the refiled case. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

MORALES VS HERBERT

To the extent that evidentiary allegations may be prejudicial if submitted to a finder of fact, that can be resolved via a motion in limine. As such, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to strike improper material in a fashion that would amount to a "line item" review of the evidentiary allegations contained within the operative complaint.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IMMUNOTHERAPY NANTIBODY, LLC, ET AL. VS SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., ET AL.

Buchwald issued various evidentiary rulings on motions in limine filed by the District Attorney. (Birts, supra at 56.) The District Attorney then refiled the same charge against Birts and filed a CCP § 170.6 challenge against Judge Buchwald in the refiled case. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CLAUDIO ZAMPOLLI VS TRISTRAM THOMAS BUCKLEY

Defendant filed his motion in limine number two for the determination of Plaintiff as a public figure with respect to the claims asserted in this action and that these matters are of public concern. Defendant’s motion in limine number two is unopposed; however, Defendant’s motion in limine number two was not filed with an accompanying proof of service.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

MORALES VS HERBERT

To the extent that evidentiary allegations may be prejudicial if submitted to a finder of fact, that can be resolved via a motion in limine. As such, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to strike improper material in a fashion that would amount to a "line item" review of the evidentiary allegations contained within the operative complaint.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC. VS PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, ET AL.

Buchwald issued various evidentiary rulings on motions in limine filed by the District Attorney. (Birts, supra at 56.) The District Attorney then refiled the same charge against Birts and filed a CCP § 170.6 challenge against Judge Buchwald in the refiled case. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

ENRIQUE SANTANA VS ADIR INTERNATIONAL LLC ET AL

At the FSC, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence that Plaintiff purportedly worked from his home-based computer based on his misuse of the discovery process. The Court, on its own motion, continued the jury trial to May 18, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROGER MANLIN VS JAVIER HERNANDEZ

The Court finds that this embraces some unreasonably incurred fees, considering the multiple hours to draft relatively simple motions in limine. Defendants also object to the fees associated with this motion. Defendants, however, do not explain why the fees associated with this motion would not be compensable. Defendants do not explain that the requested fees for this motion or the vehicle surrender would be unreasonable.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EDUARDO RAMIREZ VS GLOVA LINK CORPORATION ET AL

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S IN LIMINE MOTIONS Plaintiff’s No. 2 – Motion To exclude Evidence of Gambling or Tax Returns Allow use of tax returns redacted to exclude all evidence of income other than plaintiff’s earnings from driving. Other income sources are not relevant. Mention of gambling is irrelevant and prejudicial. Plaintiff’s No. 4 – Motion to exclude Expert Opinion of Fatzinger Hearing required. No Opposition was filed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

TERI L DUGAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

At the same time, HDMN spent significant time preparing for trial, including reviewing the case file and documents and preparing a trial exhibit binder, motions in limine, trial exhibits, and trial documents. (Daghighian Decl. ¶¶ 9, 14.) Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees incurred in this case for the work performed on behalf of Plaintiff is $6,500.00.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 01, 2020

MILLER VS. QUALITY POOL

If so, plaintiff can point that out by an appropriate procedure, such as a motion in limine. Plaintiff’s present motion, however, sheds no light at all in that direction. It offers no point-by-point analysis of any particular affirmative defense, and makes no showing that any particular defense is defeated by the licensure issue. It instead makes only the broadside argument that lack of licensure must necessarily be fatal to all of Black Diamond’s denials and defenses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

CERRO DE ALCALA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS GOVARI

There were three motions in limine filed by defendants, and oppositions thereto filed by plaintiff. ROA 65, 68-70. The court reviewed the papers, and provided written tentative rulings to the parties on the morning of October 29. The court then heard argument. Following argument and rulings on the MIL, the court heard opening statements. Evidence began at 9:40 a.m. on Oct. 29. Over the course of the day on Oct. 29, the court heard from four witnesses and received nearly 20 exhibits into evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

CLARK VS OASIS SURGERY CENTER LLC

Defendants filed five motions in limine. ROA 103-109. There was no timely written opposition. The court prepared and sent tentative rulings on the MIL to the parties. Three days later, plaintiff filed ex parte papers seeking to have the court consider tardy opposition to defendants' MIL. ROA 121-122. These papers revealed shortcomings in plaintiff's discovery responses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TERUKO GIVENS VS. DANILO CANAON SAPIDA

The court heard and made rulings on motions in limine of July 8, 2019. ROA 133. A jury was thereafter selected. Counsel gave opening statements on July 9, 2019, and evidence thereafter began. The jury heard from 14 witnesses by the time evidence concluded on July 11, 2019. The jury was instructed, and counsel presented argument on July 15, 2019. Plaintiff asked for $1.672 million; defendant sought a defense verdict.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CLARK VS OASIS SURGERY CENTER LLC

Defendants filed five motions in limine. ROA 103-109. There was no timely written opposition. The court prepared and sent tentative rulings on the MIL to the parties. Three days later, plaintiff filed ex parte papers seeking to have the court consider tardy opposition to defendants' MIL. ROA 121-122. These papers revealed shortcomings in plaintiff's discovery responses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « 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.