What is a Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence?

There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to preclude" is at issue. e.g.,

  • Introducing any Evidence or Argument Regarding Plaintiff Purportedly being Required to Provide Defendant a Right to Cure his Unapproved Subletting of a Portion of the Property
  • Introducing Evidence or Argument Regarding the Renovations, Condition, and Scope of Construction at the Building
  • Testifying at Trial Regarding Matters which they Refused to Testify about at Deposition based on Claims of Privilege and Privacy
  • Introducing Witnesses, Documents, or Contentions not Disclosed During Discovery
  • reference to tax implications
  • evidence that defendant not issued a citation
  • comments and innuendos that plaintiff's counsel referred her to her treating physicians
  • evidence of unrelated medical issues
  • evidence of plaintiff's prior loss of employment claim or change in employment
  • reference to collateral sources and health insurance
  • evidence in medical record of plaintiff's inquiry about having an attorney
  • evidence of plaintiff's smoking
  • use of textbooks and learned treatises on direct examinations
  • use of textbooks and learned treatises on direct examinations
  • expert testimony from non-designated expert witnesses
  • evidence of defective work and cost of repair, until or unless defendant has produced an invoice to support it
  • any reference to Civil Code section 3333.2 or code of civil procedure section 667.7
  • evidence of past medical expenses not actually paid by any source
  • mention of prior settlement monies received by plaintiff

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine – Preclude Evidence

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Preclude Evidence

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable injury.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 1471.) In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing—let alone a significant showing—that there is an imminent threat of irreparable harm if the requested preliminary injunction does not issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

DUTCH ENTERPRISES VS. ABDUL-AZIM

Superior Court, supra, preclude a finding that Amica is entitled to summary judgment on the basis that its insurance contract required the obtaining of its consent before it was obligated to pay Abdul-Azim’s assignee. Defendant Amica’s motion for summary judgment is denied. A case management conference has already been scheduled for October 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NORMA IFRAZ VS. GILMER PACAHUAL

In addition, Plaintiffs have filed their own "Joint Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("PSUMF") setting forth additional facts they contend are material and raise triable issues which preclude summary judgment for the Defendant. 1. Facts Generally Not Subject to Dispute All parties all concede that when the accident happened, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CERTAIN UNDERWRITTERS AT LLOYDS' SUBSCRIBING TO COVER NOTE B0509MARCR1900001, ET AL. VS APEX LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

This clause shall not preclude parties from seeking provisional remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The arbitrator may, in the award, allocate all or part of the costs of the arbitration, including the fees of the arbitrator and the reasonable attorneys' fees of the prevailing party.” It is undisputed that Lloyds is not a signatory to the Security Services Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

An employee’s post-termination failure to exhaust administrative remedies has no bearing on whether the termination violated public policy expressed through the statutory prohibition…and thus…does not preclude assertion of a nonstatutory tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public police.” (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 905.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ERNEST CUADRA VS FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

If the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties, the fact that the parties in the second action are not identical does not preclude application of the rule. Moreover, the remedies sought in the separate actions need not be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings. [Citations.]”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

VAEA VS. MARRA

The Court further predicts that even if the parties cannot stipulate to something of this kind, it is likely that the Court itself will craft some method of reaching necessary legal decisions before trial is commenced, such as by ordering trial briefs addressing issues in limine and/or instructional issues. These topics can be discussed at the CMC now set for November 17, it being remembered that CMC means “case management conference.” Managing will be done.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BARKER VS. COHEN

“Because the policy goal of encouraging free access to the courts by discouraging derivative litigation is paramount, California courts have extended the litigation privilege beyond the defamation context to preclude numerous other tort actions.” (Brown v. Kennard (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 40, 45.) “It is well settled that the litigation privilege bars causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 324, 341.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

207 ENTRADA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LEE CAPITAL BUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

ANALYSIS “The withdrawal of a lis pendens while a motion to expunge is pending does not automatically preclude recovery of attorney fees to the moving party.” The prevailing party is the party which “realized its objectives in the proceeding.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANDREW MCGINNIS, ET AL. VS SAN MARINO GARDENS WELLNESS CENTER, LP

Nor do we preclude further sets of interrogatories by plaintiff after he has conducted his examination of the medical records tendered by defendants. (§ 2030, subd. (b).) Probably plaintiff is also entitled to an explicit statement by the attending physician that he has no knowledge or personal recollection of any facts leading up to and connected with plaintiff's delivery in 1963 other than those facts contained in the hospital medical records and in the attending physician's own medical records.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JULIA GUTIERREZ VS CEDAR-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.” (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PARSIG CHOULJIAN VS TOTAL RENAL CARE INC.

Based on these opposing facts and evidence, the Court finds that there are triable issues of material fact that preclude summary adjudication as to the 2nd cause of action (Issue 1). 3. On-Call Claim Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s on-call claim fails because Plaintiff was subject to uncontrolled standby time that is not compensable. Whether an employer is obligated to pay overtime compensation for on-call shifts depends on the interpretation of the term “hours worked.” (Ghazaryan v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT VS SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS US, LLC

[emphasis added] Notably, this section does not preclude an entity such as the OCWD from recovering its clean-up costs under the HSAA provided that those response costs are “necessary and consistent with the national contingency plan [NCP].” (OCWD v. Sabic Innovative Plastics (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th 343, 371.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL.

And when an indemnity obligation definitively comes within the scope of the parties’ indemnity agreement, the terms of the agreement control and preclude a party from seeking greater recovery than could be had under the agreement based on alternative theories of indemnity. (E.L. White, Inc. v. Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 507–508.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

SHAHAR VS. SHEFAYEE JR.

. & Trust Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 365, 376 ["The test on demurrer is not whether the allegations are likely to be proven but whether the allegations preclude liability, and the allegations must be construed liberally in favor of the pleader," citing Skopp v. Weaver (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

MARK MCKINSTRY ET AL VS REGENCY CENTERS L P ET AL

“Mere nonfeasance, however, such as a negligent failure to discover a dangerous condition arising from the work will not preclude indemnity under a general clause such as the one in this case.” (Id.) “Active negligence, on the other hand, is found if an indemnitee has personally participated in an affirmative act of negligence, was connected with negligent acts or omissions by knowledge or acquiescence, or has failed to perform a precise duty which the indemnitee had agreed to perform.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

Even if Plaintiff and Defendant had an operative agreement including such a provision, it would not preclude a finding forum non conveniens. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 760.) The public interest factors favor Defendant. San Diego courts, including this Court have congested calendars. While Ohio may also have congested courts, the actions underlying this case took place in Ohio such that the citizens of Ohio have a greater interesting in deciding the case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RUBY RODRIGUEZ VS PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL - WHITTIER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.” (Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 297, 305 (2006).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

Even if Plaintiff and Defendant had an operative agreement including such a provision, it would not preclude a finding forum non conveniens. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 760.) The public interest factors favor Defendant. San Diego courts, including this Court have congested calendars. While Ohio may also have congested courts, the actions underlying this case took place in Ohio such that the citizens of Ohio have a greater interesting in deciding the case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRENT SILVER VS KIARASH Z. TEHRANI, ET AL.,

For attorney misconduct to support equitable relief from a default judgment due to extrinsic mistake, there must have been “neglect of an extreme degree amounting to positive misconduct by counsel, rather than mere inexcusable neglect, sufficient to obliterate the attorney-client relationship and thereby preclude any imputation of counsel's neglect to the client. Positive misconduct is found where there is a total failure on the part of counsel to represent his client.” People v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

For different reasons, however, Chyna is correct that the family court case does not preclude this cause of action. There is “little California case law that is helpful on the question of the claim preclusive effect of a judgment in a marital dissolution proceeding in a later tort action.” (Boblitt v. Boblitt (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 603, 611.) There is even less case law addressing the claim preclusive effect of a judgment in a paternity proceeding. Boblitt is, however, instructive.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

Even if Plaintiff and Defendant had an operative agreement including such a provision, it would not preclude a finding forum non conveniens. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 760.) The public interest factors favor Defendant. San Diego courts, including this Court have congested calendars. While Ohio may also have congested courts, the actions underlying this case took place in Ohio such that the citizens of Ohio have a greater interesting in deciding the case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BELKIS AGUILAR, ET AL. VS LISA CLOUGHESY

The court found “it is clear that the availability of a remedy for breach of implied warranty of habitability does not preclude a tenant from suing his landlord for intentional infliction of mental distress if the landlord's acts are extreme and outrageous and result in severe mental distress. Whether this is so under the present allegations, presents a factual question it cannot be said as a matter of law that appellant has not stated a cause of action.” (Id. at 922).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 294     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.