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

1-25 of 2217 results

CITY OF SACRAMENTO VS BRETT PATCHING ET AL

Defendants' Motions in Limine 1. Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 2 Motion to exclude reference to insurance coverage The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 3. Motion to exclude witnesses The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 4. Motion to exclude Chief Bassett from the courtroom when he is not testifying The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 5.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RICHARD E PARKEN ET AL VS KATHYLYNE A SMART-VASQUEZ

Motion to exclude reference to wealth or poverty of parties The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 6. Motion to preclude reference to arrests, charges, convictions of plaintiff for drugs, marijuana, alcohol The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 7. Motion to exclude reference to dismissed defendant or availability of uninsured motorist coverage The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 8.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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

CARLENE SCOTT ET AL VS. PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP ET AL

Motion to exclude reference to insurance The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 3. Motion to exclude reference to toxic mold The motion is denied. Defendants seek to exclude the use of the term toxic mold on the grounds lack of relevance and prejudice. (Ev. Code §§ 350 and 352) Defendants contend the issue of whether there was toxic mold is not relevant because no-one ever lived in the units and there is no claim for personal injury damage. Defendants contend use of the term will inflame the jury.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS F THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY VS. HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP

Plaintiff's Motions in Limine and Cross-defendants' Joinders All joinders are granted. The rulings on the motions apply also to the parties joining in the motions. 1. Motion to Exclude Reference to Prior Medical Condition of Bobby Bill The motion is GRANTED pursuant to the parties' stipulation. 2. Motion to Exclude Reference to Saarman Construction Reports by Onne Broek The motion is GRANTED as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS F THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY VS. HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP

Plaintiff's Motions in Limine and Cross-defendants' Joinders All joinders are granted. The rulings on the motions apply also to the parties joining in the motions. 1. Motion to Exclude Reference to Prior Medical Condition of Bobby Bill The motion is GRANTED pursuant to the parties' stipulation. 2. Motion to Exclude Reference to Saarman Construction Reports by Onne Broek The motion is GRANTED as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARCY RANDOLPH VS COUNTY OF AMADOR. ETAL

Exclude Reference To Plaintiff's Prior Attorney (Coben) Granted. 22. Preclude Evidence Of Tax Ramifications of Damage Award. Granted. 23. Exclude Reference To The Arnold Law Firm. Denied. Defendants' Motions in Limine 1. Exclude nonparty witnesses from courtroom prior to their testimony (Evid.Code Section 777.) Granted. Local Rule 13.01. 2. Settlement Negotiations Granted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CAROLINE BARR-BROFELDT VS MILLER LAW. INC.. ET AL.

Motions in Limine – Tentative Ruling Defendants' Motions in Limine 1. Omnibus Motion (a) Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted as to settlement discussions and offers in this case. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion with this limitation. This ruling does not mean that plaintiff cannot produce evidence of settlement discussions with Nelmar Construction in the underlying case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

TARISA BELLAMY VS MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED. Non-party witnesses are ordered excluded from the courtroom. Of course, this exclusion does not apply to defendant’s designated officer or employee who will serve as the party present in the courtroom. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to objecting at trial. Plaintiff seeks to exclude reference to “the fact” that she no longer possesses the vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

BONNIE SMITH VS. FOLSOM READY MIX INC

Exclude reference to other injuries. Not opposed. Granted. 8. Preclude evidence that defendant not issued a citation. Granted. 9. Exclude reference to any prior relationships between plaintiff's treating physicians and counsel for plaintiff. The motion is denied as to Dr. Reddy because he is being compensated as an expert and has not yet produced his original billings. It is also denied as to Dr. Tyler Smith as he is also being compensated as an expert.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JEFFREY SHAFFER VS. BERGELECTRIC CORP

Motion in Limine No. 4: Exclude Evidence of Alleged Attempts To Cut Plaintiff Off While Driving. The motion is denied. Motion in Limine No. 5: Exclude Evidence of Harassment Training. The motion is denied. Motion in Limine No. 6: Exclude Evidence That Raquel Tellez Failed To Appear For Her Deposition. The motion is unopposed and is granted. Plaintiff's Motions Motion in LImine No. 1: Exclude Reference To Irrelevant Private Information Contained In Plaintiff's Medical Records.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2010

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NOEL LYNN ROBERTS VS. DOWNTOWN PLAZA LLC

Plaintiff's Motions in Limine 1. Motion to exclude reference to tax information The motion is granted. It is unopposed. 2. Motion to exclude reference to potentially prejudicial issues during voir dire The motion is granted. It is unopposed. 3. Motion to exclude reference to settlement discussions The motion is unnecessary. It has already been deemed granted by the court's standing order issued in this case. (See also Local Rule 13.01(2)) 4.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY K KENDALL VS STEVE FISK. ET AL.

Motion to exclude reference to use by Cal Bay builders of electricity of plaintiff's neighbor The motion is denied. Defendants contend evidence that they used a neighbor's electricity is not relevant to the improper construction claims and the only possible purpose for its use would be to cast defendants in a poor light. Plaintiff contends such evidence is relevant to the central issue in this case as to whether defendants performed the repairs in a workmanlike manner.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2011

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARR VS. WALSH

No. 5 (ROA # 127): To exclude reference to, mention of, or from evidence concerning: 1. the location of WALSH's counsel's law firm, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, including references to a "Los Angeles law firm," "L.A. lawyers," "city lawyers," being from "out of town," and the like; 2. the location of PLAINTIFFS' counsel's law firm, including any reference to counsel as "local lawyer," "small town lawyer," "San Diego law firm," "San Diego lawyer," and the like; 3. the size of WALSH's counsel's law

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARR VS. WALSH [IMAGED}

No. 5 (ROA # 127): To exclude reference to, mention of, or from evidence concerning: 1. the location of WALSH's counsel's law firm, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, including references to a "Los Angeles law firm," "L.A. lawyers," "city lawyers," being from "out of town," and the like; 2. the location of PLAINTIFFS' counsel's law firm, including any reference to counsel as "local lawyer," "small town lawyer," "San Diego law firm," "San Diego lawyer," and the like; 3. the size of WALSH's counsel's law

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARR VS. WALSH [IMAGED}

No. 5 (ROA # 127): To exclude reference to, mention of, or from evidence concerning: 1. the location of WALSH's counsel's law firm, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, including references to a "Los Angeles law firm," "L.A. lawyers," "city lawyers," being from "out of town," and the like; 2. the location of PLAINTIFFS' counsel's law firm, including any reference to counsel as "local lawyer," "small town lawyer," "San Diego law firm," "San Diego lawyer," and the like; 3. the size of WALSH's counsel's law

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARR VS. WALSH

No. 5 (ROA # 127): To exclude reference to, mention of, or from evidence concerning: 1. the location of WALSH's counsel's law firm, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, including references to a "Los Angeles law firm," "L.A. lawyers," "city lawyers," being from "out of town," and the like; 2. the location of PLAINTIFFS' counsel's law firm, including any reference to counsel as "local lawyer," "small town lawyer," "San Diego law firm," "San Diego lawyer," and the like; 3. the size of WALSH's counsel's law

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE TDS GROUP INC VS. THE IRA CENTER

Plaintiffs dispute this assertion and contend that this is not a proper motion in limine. On this record the Court does not know the exact nature of the testimony that will be offered. Consequently, the motion is properly denied without prejudice as premature under the reasoning of Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670. 3. Motion to Exclude Reference to Attorney Fees incurred by Plaintiff The motion is granted. It is not opposed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2014

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NOLAN LAMB VS. CERTAINTEED COR

However, the Court does not decide, now, whether to exclude reference to the boots at trial. It intends to convene a hearing, in limine, to hear further testimony and evidence about this matter and will rule at that time on whether to exclude evidence and if so, what further sanctions, if any, to award.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2017

STEPHENSON VS. SIMON

No. 7 (ROA # 109): To EXCLUDE ANY MENTION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE AVAILABLE TO PLAINTIF AFTER THE INCIDENT OR THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MITIGATE HER DAMAGES BY NOT TREATING THROUGH HER HEALTH INSURANCE – Grant to exclude reference to insurance. CACI 105. Otherwise, Deny to exclude evidence that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JORDAN GROSSMAN VS JESSICA HERWILL ET AL

CD 17-- TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO HERWILL BEING INSTRUCTED ON HER DECLARATION REGARDING DOCTOR HIGH While this subject may be uncomfortable to WJKA, WJKA is free to cross-examine Herwill on it and present counter evidence. The motion is DENIED. CD 18-- TO EXCLUDE WAGNER JONES’S STATEMENTS IN THE UNDERLYING CASE ABOUT THE WORTH OF HERWILL’S CLAIMS These statements are directly relevant to a central issue in this action and are not subject to exclusion.

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2019

WANDA JEAN JOHNSON VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ET AL

P6 MOTION IN LMIINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO ATTORNEY FEES SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS PLAINTIFF: Attorney Fees are not relevant to any claim or defense and is unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code Section 352. Brooks v. Cook (9th Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 1048, 1051 (mention of attorney fees constituted grounds for a new trial).

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2018

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

DORFMAN V HOIDAL

To exclude reference to marijuana use of its effect. DENIED. #4. To exclude opinions by lay witnesses relating to marketing, sales and accounting. DEFERRED. This in limine motion is premature. The Court needs to hear the question in context and I will rule on the objection if and when it is raised. #5. To exclude expert testimony prepared after expert deposition. GRANTED. The motion is GRANTED as to any opinions not expressed at the deposition. 32.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2010

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.