Motion for leave to file Opposition / Motion for reconsideration / Motion to vacate
Defendants Jordan Frank and Heroes Restaurant, Inc. dba Roscoe’s Famous Deli, and specially appearing Defendants James Frank and Jeff Hayden filed a Joinder on June 24, 2026. The Joiner is untimely because it was filed less than 16 court days before the July 8, 2026, hearing. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.) The Joinder is denied.
Moving Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.
7 Kimes vs. Rich TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Conrad Phillip Kimes’ motion for leave to file Opposition and to reconsider and vacate orders granting Defendants’ motion in limine nos. 1, 2 and 4 is DENIED as moot.
Relevant Case History
This matter was initially scheduled for trial on 2/9/26.
On 02/04/26, Plaintiff filed a notice of Substitution of Attorney. (ROA no. 334.) Plaintiff is now representing himself. (Id.)
On 2/5/26, Defendants Rayco Construction Enterprises, Inc., T.S.G. Independent Property Management, Inc., Beacon Hill Terrace Condominium Homeowners Association, Rich Carrol and Design Build Associates, LLC filed their motions in limine, including the motions in limine at issue here: nos. 1, 2, and 4. (See ROA nos. 356, 353, 352, 354, and 355).
On 2/6/26, the court continued the pretrial conference, and the trial, to 6/18/26. The court noted in its order that “Court and counsel hold discussions regarding plaintiff representation, witness list, estimated time of trial and bifurcation.” (ROA 361). The Order does not set forth any decision on the motions in limine.
On 2/17/26, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file an opposition to motions in limine nos. 1, 2, and 4 and to reconsider and vacate orders granting Defendants’ motions in limine.
On 6/15/26, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions in limine, nos. 1 through 7. (ROA 419).
On 6/18/26, Plaintiff made a verbal request for a continuance, and the court granted the request with no objection from Defendant. The trial was continued to 11/2/26. The pretrial conference was continued to
10/30/26. (ROA 436). Pursuant to the continuances, the motions in limine have not yet been decided by this Court.
Plaintiff’s Motion
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff argues that he became self-represented and did not have a meaningful opportunity to review or prepare a response prior to review or oppose the motions prior to the Court's rulings.
The Civil Rules of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Orange County set forth the following rules for motions in limine:
Rule 317, subd. (A):
An Issue Conference is required in all cases at least 14 days before the date set for trial, at which time the parties must meet and confer and exchange and/or sign as applicable the documents listed below. Plaintiff/Petitioner must arrange the Issue Conference at a mutually agreeable time and location.
At the Issue Conference the parties must: ...
6. Exchange all motions in limine.
...
The above items, including the Statement of Compliance signed by all counsel and self- represented parties, must be filed no later than noon of the Wednesday before trial.
At the discretion of the assigned judicial officer, a Pre-Trial Conference may be scheduled in lieu of or in addition to the Issue Conference.
Rule 317, subd. (B) provides:
By noon on the Wednesday before trial, the parties must deliver to the clerk in the trial department, for the Court, a tabbed three-ring Joint Trial Notebook that contains all of the following items, if applicable. Separate notebooks must be used if any notebook will be more than 3” thick. The Trial Notebook is a courtesy copy for the Court’s use and does not relieve the parties of their obligation to electronically file all trial-related documents. ...
12. Any motions in limine exchanged at the issue conference, along with all then-filed oppositions and replies thereto.
As stated above, Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to the motions in limine that are the subject of this motion (motion nos. 1, 2 and 4) in preparation of the 6/18/26 trial date. And trial was again continued to 11/2/26, which provides Plaintiff another opportunity to submit Oppositions to the motions in limine in compliance with Local Rule 317.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an Opposition to the motions in limine is now moot.
Defendants shall give notice.
8 Magnolia TENTATIVE RULING: Educational & Research For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner Magnolia Research & Foundation vs. Educational Foundation’s Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED. Irvine Unified School District Evidentiary Objections
Respondent’s Objection Nos. 1-16 to the Declaration of Suat Acar are OVERRULED. “It is settled law that where evidence is in part admissible, and in part inadmissible, the objectionable portion cannot be reached by a general objection to the entire [evidence], but the inadmissible portion must be specified.” (People v. Harris (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 954, 957; see also Walls v. Macy’s (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 29, 30.)
Petitioner’s Objection No. 1 to the Declaration of Brenda Recino is OVERRULED; Objection Nos. 2-3 are SUSTAINED (for lack of foundation and personal knowledge).
Petitioner’s Objection Nos. 1-2 to the Declaration of John Fogarty are OVERRULED.
Background
Petitioner Magnolia Research & Educational Foundation (the “School”) operates a network of eleven charter schools in Southern California, including Magnolia Science Academy–Orange County, a countywide charter school approved by the Orange County Board of Education to serve K-12 students throughout Orange County. (Petition ¶ 6.)