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

Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude Reference to

2176-2200 of 2240 results

ANITA LONGIN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Daghighian filed thirteen motions in limine relating to trial on May 12, 2016, and filed oppositions to Ford’s MILs. (Daghighian Decl. ¶¶ 18, 19.) Daghighian also notes that Ford served its first 998 offer on May 20, 2016 for $15,000. (Id. ¶ 24.) Ford’s second 998 offer was on March 13, 2017, for a total of $18,000. (Id. ¶ 26.) Daghighian states he spent 347.75 hours on this case at $400 per hour, not including time spent on this motion for attorneys’ fees. (Daghighian Decl. ¶¶ 3–5.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2017

TIMED OUT LLC VS 13359 CORP

Additionally, Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and motions in limine numbers 1 through 7 filed July 11, 2016 were denied without prejudice as untimely. The court’s July 14, 2016 order reflects Defendant’s failure to timely post jury fees and the resulting waiver as well as the denial of these motions.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2016

JOHN J STEF VS PUEBLO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was excluded at trial, on the grounds it was irrelevant; (e) plaintiff’s copious pre-trial and at-trial briefing, including service of five motions in limine on four different dates, all of which had to be evaluated, and three of which had to be opposed, and the submission of three separate trial briefs (36 pages, 61 pages with 70 pages of exhibits attached, and 20 pages with 150 pages of exhibits attached), all of which had to be evaluated; (f) trial over six days, involving an

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

AFFINITO VS. AFFINITO

Volumes 9 and 10 contain plaintiffs’ twenty-two (22) motions in limine. If plaintiffs’ counsel believe that they are impressing the Court with this deluge of paper, they are mistaken. The Court is impressed by arguments that are cogent and concise, and by papers that are no more voluminous and burdensome than necessary. The Court has read and considered everything plaintiffs have filed, and will continue to do so. But the Court would appreciate a more thoughtful approach in future filings.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2018

MONIQUE KAL MCCLENDON, ET AL. VS URBAN STREET PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

The Court might also, in response to a proper motion in limine, prevent Defendants from introducing any contrary evidence at trial. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1 and 12.6. b.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

COAST REHABILITATION SERVICES INC VS THE DORTON FIRM PC

On June 15, the day before the pretrial conference, this Court posted a 12-page Pretrial Conference Order setting out tentative decisions as to both sides relating to in limine motions, requests for judicial notice, pretrial and final jury instructions on PowerPoint and jury verdict forms; witness lists, overview of the case, etc. 3. Among many other orders the Pretrial Conference Order provided: “15. Trial starting times. NO EXCEPTIONS.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2011

DESMOND RUCKER VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Just as the Court did at the time of trial in ruling on the parties' motions in limine and other evidence, the Court has revisited Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which is the framework of claims litigated at trial. The Second Amended Complaint does indeed reference "persons of color" but not in the specific manner of alleging claims on behalf of all "persons of color" that Plaintiffs suggest.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MELODY HSIEH VS. SLIM GLOW CORP, ET AL

The Court reserves the right to make additional orders in limine to prevent any prejudice to Plaintiff as the result of Wei’s failure to produce information. B. Monetary Sanctions CCP §2023.030(a) states: “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COAST REHABILITATION SERVICES INC VS THE DORTON FIRM PC

On June 15, the day before the pretrial conference, this Court posted a 12-page Pretrial Conference Order setting out tentative decisions as to both sides relating to in limine motions, requests for judicial notice, pretrial and final jury instructions on PowerPoint and jury verdict forms; witness lists, overview of the case, etc. 3. Among many other orders the Pretrial Conference Order provided: “15. Trial starting times. NO EXCEPTIONS.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2011

AUTO FINANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC VS. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

The Court finds that these disputed issues of fact and mixed questions of law and fact remain unresolved and that further legal briefing may be required, in motions in limine prior to trial or during trial. For example, the parties have cited no cases on point that interpret the language of flooring agreements to show under what circumstances a flooring lender’s prior security might be extinguished by operation of law or might be waived by the terms of the flooring agreement.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

CATHY BUENDIA VS ENRIQUE MARTINEZ

The moving party may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial. Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 22, 2018 _____________________________ Dennis J.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HELEN DUFFY VS VISEMER DE GELT LLC ET AL

The Phase 1 trial was conducted pursuant to the “Stipulation and Order Mooting Defendants’ Motion in Limine “N” And to Conduct Trial of Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Cause of Action in Lieu of Trial in the Related Unlawful Detainer Action,” (“Stipulated Order “N”), filed and entered by this Court on August 9, 2019. Plaintiff Helen Duffy (“Ms. Duffy”) appeared though her attorneys of record, Andrew J. Thomas, Esq., and Marcia Z. Gordon, Esq. Defendants Sol Feiner (“Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

AMANDA MARTIN VS DENISE CHAMBLISS ET AL

The defendant attorneys moved in limine under the mediation confidentiality statutes to exclude all evidence of communications between plaintiff and defendants related to mediation. (Id. at p. 121.) The motion was granted. The plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the appellate court granted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

ALMA ALCARAZ VS POISON IVY INC ET AL

The moving party may include the motion 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 is ordered to give notice of this ruling.IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED: June 21, 2018_____________________________Dennis J.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2018

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS 8400 S VERMONT AVENUE LP ET AL

According to Law Revision Commission comments annotating CCP section 1260.040, this statute “is intended to provide a mechanism by which a party may obtain early resolution of an in limine motion or other dispute affecting valuation.” Hence, “[t]he procedure should be limited to resolution of legal issues that may affect compensation, such as what constitutes the larger parcel, or the probability of a zoning change; it should not be used to ascertain just compensation.” (Dina v. People ex rel.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

LALITA TITO ET AL VS LOTUS PROPERTY SERVICES INC ET AL

., a final status conference and motions in limine for January 16, 2018, and a jury trial for January 31, 2018. [Id. at 1-2.] Subsequently, it appears the Plaintiffs, on August 21, 2017, filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and motion for costs. Plaintiffs seek an award of $311,195.92, plus expenses in the amount of $7,366.30. II.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

    Aug 05, 2020

KULICK VS LEISURE VILLAGE

To the extent this argument might be construed as a request for some finding or order from the Court regarding how this case should be tried, the Court should declines to address this issue in the absence of a noticed motion (or motion in limine) seeking such relief. TENTATIVE RULINGS Page: 8

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

MARYL DAVIS VS WILLIAM CHILDRESS ET AL

Plaintiff points to the $198.70 charge for filing oppositions to plaintiff’s motions in limine as an example. Plaintiff also objects to $1,377.79 in discovery related messenger fees and $2,175.00 in JAMS mediation fees. The objections are overruled. While messenger and mediation fees are not statutorily enumerated, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(c)(4) permits a court to award costs that are reasonably and necessarily incurred in an action. Here, St.

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

STANLEY VINCENT VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Their stipulation further set forth a briefing schedule for motions in limine, and a date by which trial briefs, witness lists, exhibit lists, proposed jury instructions, and any pretrial stipulations, joint statement of the case, and proposed jury questionnaire would be filed, in anticipation of that date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SELENE VALENZUELA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Defendant argues that indeed, in the instant matter, the motions in limine, jury instructions, and other related trial documents were prepared by only slightly modifying templates counsel has used in dozens of other Song-Beverly cases. Defendant asserts that the second factor also cuts against enhancement here. Defendant contends that counsel has not presented any evidence whatsoever suggesting that they avoided taking on new clients to represent Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

They further coordinated on motions in limine and oppositions to Timed Out’s efforts to introduce other potential damages witnesses. (Vallejo Decl. ¶ 5.) They further worked with jury consultant Paulette Taylor for voir dire during trial on January 15–17, 2020. (Vallejo Decl. ¶ 5.) On January 21, 2020, Timed Out announced that it had reached a partial settlement with Prisma.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CANDACE BOLLINGER VS LOIS KANE ET AL

The moving party may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial. Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 22, 2018 _____________________________ Dennis J.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

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

  « first    1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.