Sais vs. Cubesmart

All counsel and self-represented parties appearing remotely must check-in online through the court’s civil video appearance website at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.

Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5618 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.

NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.

# Case Name Tentative 2025-1469238 Sais vs. Cubesmart

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2023-1363391 Baselyos vs. Stumbaugh & Associates, Inc. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The request to prohibit Defendant from presenting any evidence or argument concerning Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is DENIED. Whether Defendant ultimately proves comparative negligence is for the jury. Plaintiff’s motion improperly seeks to eliminate an affirmative defense through an evidentiary motion.

The motion is GRANTED to the extent Defendant, or any witness, may not argue or testify that Plaintiff was “on his phone” absent competent admissible evidence establishing that fact. Buchanan’s statement that Plaintiff’s head was “down like he was on a phone” is speculative insofar as it attributes a cause for Plaintiff’s head position.

The Court reserves ruling on the admissibility of Buchanan’s written incident report as a whole until Defendant establishes an