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

176-200 of 2217 results

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

Defendant asserts that if Plaintiffs believe that the amount of attorneys’ fees paid to date once disclosed should not be admissible at trial, the appropriate means of addressing that issue is a motion in limine.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

VALERIE MCCLURE VS BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON ET AL

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE As indicated above, Plaintiff filed motion in limine number one to exclude expert witness testimony offered by Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

DIVISION SIX SPORTS INC VS SHAUN WHITE ET AL

Ruling on SWE's Motion in Limine No. 4 - SWE's Motion in Limine No. 4. is DENIED. The Court suggests that the parties discuss a special instruction (without case citations) on this issue, to be discussed at the next FSC. For example the special instruction could read: “The implied promise [of good faith and fair dealing] requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” (Citing Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

MEDINA VS MCKEON

Plaintiff filed two motions in limine. Defendant filed six. Opposition papers were also filed. ROA 88-103. The court reviewed the papers, and faxed tentative rulings to counsel well in advance of the trial call. The court heard argument on October 15, and that morning issued its rulings. ROA 57. A jury was thereafter selected and empaneled. Opening statements were given on October 16, and evidence began.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MEDINA VS MCKEON

Plaintiff filed two motions in limine. Defendant filed six. Opposition papers were also filed. ROA 88-103. The court reviewed the papers, and faxed tentative rulings to counsel well in advance of the trial call. The court heard argument on October 15, and that morning issued its rulings. ROA 57. A jury was thereafter selected and empaneled. Opening statements were given on October 16, and evidence began.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GUERRA VS. BMW

That, however, would be a motion in limine, not a summary judgment or adjudication motion. Summary judgment cannot be granted unless it would dispose of plaintiff’s entire case. Nor can summary adjudication be granted unless it disposes of one or more entire causes of action. None of plaintiff’s three pleaded causes of action purports to be limited to those two particular problems with the vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

MARIA GUTIERREZ, ET AL. VS ILANA MARIA STOLTZ

The issue can be re-raised by noticed motion, or it can be raised as a Motion in Limine prior to the Final Status Conference.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

THOMAS GONZALES VS KIMBERLY OLSON LIND, ET AL.

While the email did not set a deadline for Plaintiff to review, Plaintiff received this proposed agreement a couple of weeks before trial when Plaintiff was filing his motions in limine. This timing was suspect. Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not submit a declaration providing evidentiary support for his argument that the circumstances demanded an immediate response without appropriate time for review or to ask questions. (See opposition 6:1-13.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

STANLEY VINCENT VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

There were 16 motions in limine. The jury trial lasted 11 days. It was a difficult case for the plaintiff. Because CHP offered a legitimate reason for its actions with substantial documentation, Vincent had a substantial burden to prove that the offered reason was a pretext. 1. Lodestar: a. Hourly Rate: As a preliminary matter, the court notes that it previously awarded a monetary sanction to Vincent and awarded $3,450. This was for six hours of his lawyer’s time at $575 per hour.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ALONSO OCON ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ET AL

They are properly addressed to the trial court by way of motion in limine. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THEE AGUILA, INC. VS SANTIAGO ACUNA

Discovery, pretrial motions, motions in limine, witnesses and evidence were inextricably interconnected. ERDM Costs The Thee Aguila motion to tax costs is ruled on as follows: with the exception of filing fees, there is no realistic way to apportion costs as noted above. Filing fees are stricken as to two cases. Thee Aguila Fees This analysis applies to both fee motions. Thee Aguila fees are granted en toto. These were complicated and inextricably linked matters.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

SHAHRIAR YAZDANNIAZ VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Finally, as to the motions in limine, Plaintiff asserts that the motions were prepared in December 2018 when trial was scheduled to commence on March 11, 2019, with an FSC on March 1, 2019. Plaintiff contends that it is not inappropriate for counsel to prepare motions in limine in advance of the trial date. The Court finds that the amount of fees request is unreasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

Plaintiffs filed eight motions in limine, and defendants filed 11. Opposition briefing was also filed. ROA 56-63, 67-93. The court read the briefs over the Labor Day weekend, and faxed tentative rulings to the parties on September 4. On September 5, arguments were made, and the court decided the motions in limine. Jury selection was completed on September 6, the jury received preliminary instructions, opening statements were made, and evidence began.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

Plaintiffs filed eight motions in limine, and defendants filed 11. Opposition briefing was also filed. ROA 56-63, 67-93. The court read the briefs over the Labor Day weekend, and faxed tentative rulings to the parties on September 4. On September 5, arguments were made, and the court decided the motions in limine. Jury selection was completed on September 6, the jury received preliminary instructions, opening statements were made, and evidence began.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PENDZICH VS ADAMS

Plaintiffs filed eight motions in limine, and defendants filed 11. Opposition briefing was also filed. ROA 56-63, 67-93. The court read the briefs over the Labor Day weekend, and faxed tentative rulings to the parties on September 4. On September 5, arguments were made, and the court decided the motions in limine. Jury selection was completed on September 6, the jury received preliminary instructions, opening statements were made, and evidence began.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAKOTA WINGATE VS ARAM MEGRABIAN ET AL

Moving Defendants 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. Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

KAY VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Motions in Limine Defendants, Regents of the University of California, doing business as University of California San Diego Medical Center and Richard Todd Allen, M.D. No. 1 (# 109): To preclude evidence of prior civil lawsuits, claims made or claims which may be made in the future against Defendants for medical malpractice – GRANT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KAY VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Motions in Limine Defendants, Regents of the University of California, doing business as University of California San Diego Medical Center and Richard Todd Allen, M.D. No. 1 (# 109): To preclude evidence of prior civil lawsuits, claims made or claims which may be made in the future against Defendants for medical malpractice – GRANT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KAY VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Motions in Limine Defendants, Regents of the University of California, doing business as University of California San Diego Medical Center and Richard Todd Allen, M.D. No. 1 (# 109): To preclude evidence of prior civil lawsuits, claims made or claims which may be made in the future against Defendants for medical malpractice – GRANT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOSEPH PEREZ VS SOBA OUTPATIENT AND RECOVERY LLC

The Court notes that trial is scheduled for 2/11/20, and Defendant has filed motions in limine in connection with the trial date. The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs concerning the status of the RFAs and any request for sanctions on or before Tuesday, 1/21/20, with courtesy copies delivered directly to the department. Plaintiff must provide a copy of any responses received and/or a more detailed description of what was received.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

LEE VS. CARDIFF

This ruling shall not prejudice defendant’s right to raise relevance or other objections in motions in limine or at trial.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

LEE VS. CARDIFF

This ruling shall not prejudice defendant’s right to raise relevance or other objections in motions in limine or at trial.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

DOE G.F. V. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

As noted, this is a question for further discovery (deposition), solid investigation, motions in limine, and if warranted impeachment at trial. Take for example the questions about grooming and notice. Plaintiff provided all she has to provide. It seems the defense might be pleased to learn that plaintiff has very little direct evidence of grooming in plain sight.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

GARY PATENT ET AL VS OLATUNJI BANDELE D V M ET AL

However, even if Defendants are correct that MICRA applies, such an issue could have been raised through a Motion in Limine or a post-trial motion – both of which would have been more economical than this motion. Nonetheless, the Court must exercise its discretion liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Kittredge Sports Co., 213 Cal.App.3d at 1047.) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to amend the answer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

GARY PATENT ET AL VS OLATUNJI BANDELE D V M ET AL

However, even if Defendants are correct that MICRA applies, such an issue could have been raised through a Motion in Limine or a post-trial motion – both of which would have been more economical than this motion. The Court must exercise its discretion liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Kittredge Sports Co., 213 Cal.App.3d at 1047.) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to amend the answer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 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.