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

2176-2200 of 2217 results

BRENDA SMITH ET AL VS MENTOR CORPORATION

At this case management conference the Court will be scheduling dates for submission of in limine motions (and oppositions), witness lists, statement of the case, jury instructions, and exhibit lists/exchange of exhibits. 19. This will be the Case Management Order for this date. Mr. Large will serve it. Thomas P. Anderle Judge

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2010

TANYA K LINTON VS. DEANNA GUTMAN

The motion should be denied without prejudice to it being brought as P's 1st motion in limine. gmr

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2010

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KATHY ELAINE LUHR ET AL VS MENTOR CORPORATION

At this case management conference the Court will be scheduling dates for submission of in limine motions (and oppositions), witness lists, statement of the case, jury instructions, and exhibit lists/exchange of exhibits. 19. This will be the Case Management Order for this date. Mr. Large will serve it. Thomas P. Anderle Judge

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2010

DESEREE GAMAYO VS. DROBNY LAW OFFICES INC

Strictly speaking, this motion is not an in limine motion. (See Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582) In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues in advance of trial. The usual purpose of motions in limine is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2010

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DARLENE LATIMORE VS AJ'S RESTORATION SERVICES. ETAL

The remaining orders sought by defendant may be made in the form of in limine motions to the trial judge.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JIM MACKLIN VS. AMERICRETE INC

What in limine motions are not designed to do is to replace the dispositive motions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Ibid.) This motion is an attempt to eliminate an affirmative defense. It is not properly resolved on motion in limine. The motion is properly denied on that basis. The Court reaches no opinion on the merits. 7. Motion to exclude reference to past criminal conduct The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

REGENTS VS AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY ET AL

The in limine motion is much too broad. In any event it seems closely duplicative of in limine motion #2 and seeks to exclude any (1) evidence of “industry standards of sureties,” or “performance and conduct of other sureties on projects other than the one being litigated.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2010

MAXINE EKSTROM VS. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

To exclude reference to defendants' prior counsel, or change in counsel. The motion is unopposed and is granted. 5. To preclude Plaintiff from asking prospective juror in voir dire whether they could award a certain figure of damages, and to prohibit Plaintiff's counsel from referring to Plaintiff as a "victim." The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RON CASTILLO ET AL VS PAUL FLOHR ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Judgment on Pleadings Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regarding Rent Control as a Factor to Value Plaintiff’s Home as of the February 18, 2005 Foreclosure Ruling The court denies defendant Express Escrow Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to exclude testimony regarding the County’s rent control ordinance.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2009

RACHEL VINATIERI VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL

The motion is in essence a motion in limine that is best decided by the trial judge. =(302/HEK)

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2009

DOMINIQUE LACERTE AND THOMAS BRENNAN

Furthermore, examination of the admissibility of an expert’s opinions whether in family law cases or otherwise, is so common that hardly a case is ever tried these days when the issues of inadmissibility of an expert’s opinion is not raised either during trial or during pretrial motions in limine. Thus the issue that will or may be presented can be effectively addressed when it is presented.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2009

RON CASTILLO ET AL VS PAUL FLOHR ET AL

Analysis In the interests of judicial economy, the Court will consider the late-filed motion in limine. “[A] final judgment, rendered upon the merits by a court having jurisdiction of the cause, is conclusive of the rights of the parties and those in privity with them…” Goddard v. Security Title Ins. & Guarantee Co. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 47, 52.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2009

ROMERO VS WONG

In limine motions. (DEFERRED means the parties shall not address such matters unless and until they bring the matter to the Court’s attention before any reference to it or any attempt to introduce it into evidence is made.) Plaintiff’s in limine motions #1. To exclude collateral source payments by plaintiff’s medical insurance. GRANTED. (I did not see any opposition.) In Nishihama v City (2001) 93 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2009

JOYCE LOPEZ VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant can bring a motion in limine or rely on jury instructions. Plaintiff has provided no authority for the application of the continuing violation doctrine to Labor Code § 1197.5 nor would such an application appear consistent with the limited record keeping requirements in Labor Code § 1179.5(d). Defendant relies on the same factors as set forth above with respect to the equal pay cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2009

PEI VS EL CAP RANCH ET AL

To exclude reference to any complaints by persons who are not parties to this litigation. Granted. #4. To exclude any mention of a DUI citation issued to Arturo Gonzalez. Granted. #5. To exclude expert testimony which was not provided in deposition. Granted. (Applies to both sides.) Specifically, and in addition, the defendants should not expect to have Mr. Dean (I see his declaration of September 22) testify about what he has done since his deposition of April 14.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2009

RON CASTILLO ETC VS ORIGEN FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC ETC

If there are documents or witnesses that plaintiffs did not disclose, Origen can seek to exclude them through motions in limine or objections at trial. Evidence of value beyond the testimony of the two plaintiffs themselves, would be a matter of expert witness designation, which is not before the court. But on the limited record of progressive sanctions before it, the court will not grant terminating sanctions or the alternative sanctions sought in the reply memorandum.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2009

KIM KLEIN ET AL VS ROBERT KLEIN ESTATE ET AL

To exclude reference to Edwin Lasso as Michael Klein’s agent. DENIED. #18. To exclude “new opinion testimony” of plaintiffs’ experts. GRANTED BUT THE ORDER EXTENDS TO ALL EXPERTS. 25. Please use the lectern on voir dire, for opening statements, when questioning witnesses, and for closing arguments. 26. No speaking objections. 27. One lawyer rule per side as to objections and witness examination. 28. Do not invite a stipulation from opposing counsel in front of the jury. 29. Form of the questions: a.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2009

SIMMONS VS LAMPKIN

At the outset I cannot distinguish this in limine motion from #2 above and my ruling would be the same. That is, obviously her injuries from her earlier accident are admissible but the fact that she made a claim, filed a lawsuit, and received a settlement is not. Defendants in limine motions #1. To exclude testimony of Edward Bennett. (I have read the opposition submitted) The defendant’s motion is DEFERRED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2009

SMITH V CLIFF VIEW TERRACE ET AL

In limine motions. (DEFERRED means the parties shall not address such matters until and unless they bring the matter to the Court’s attention before any reference to it or any attempt to introduce it into evidence is made.) Plaintiff’s in limine motions #1 To exclude defendants’ experts from testifying at trial. DENIED. Defendants Cliff View Terrace and Evelina Murphy’s in limine motions (I have read the responses) #1.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2009

KIM KLEIN VS ESTATE OF MICHAEL B KLEIN ET AL

In limine motions, jury instructions, jury verdict forms, witness list, statement of the case all due on August 12. Opposition to in limine motions due on August 17 at noon. Pretrial tentative rulings on all in limine motions and other issues raised by the Court will be posted by noon on August 18. We try cases 4 ½ days a week in this department. I have a jury trial estimate of 10 days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2009

SAUCEDO V CLIFF VIEW TERRACE

In limine motions. (DEFERRED means the parties shall not address such matters until and unless they bring the matter to the Court’s attention before any reference to it or any attempt to introduce it into evidence is made.) Plaintiff’s in limine motions (I have read the opposition to motions 1-3) #1 To preclude defendants’ experts from testifying based on materials not provided to defense experts at or before the time of their depositions. GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2009

DON BERRY ET AL VS BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS CORP

Some or all of the parties may wish to consider filing a motion to the Presiding Judge to either: 1) Preassign this case to one judge for trial so that hearing dates for motions in limine and other pretrial hearings may be scheduled; or 2) Assign the remainder of this case to one judge for all purposes.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2009

MARK RANDALL RICE VS. TERESA MELGOZA

Deny without prejudice to in limine motion to limit the same. gmr

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2009

CAERUS CAPITAL VS JACKIE TORRES

In limine motions. (DEFERRED means the parties shall not address such matters until and unless they bring the matter to the Court’s attention before any reference to it or any attempt to introduce it into evidence is made.) Plaintiff’s in limine motions #1 To exclude evidence requested during discovery but not produced by defendants. GRANTED. The request appears to be reasonable.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2009

THOMAS TREZONA VS. DOUGLAS W HILLIS

Plaintiff maintains that such a request is properly made in an in limine motion to the trial judge. Moreover, plaintiff argues that defendant has delayed in bringing this motion as the supplemental designation was made on February 20. The court finds that a continuance of trial is appropriate in this case. Defendent should have an opportunity to challenge plaintiff's supplemental expert witness designation prior to an in limine motion at the time of trial.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 88 89     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.