Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3; Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1; Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2
(Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse: Dept. A14) August 14, 2026 DEPARTMENT A14 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Department A14 Tentative Rulings If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at [email protected] or calling 661 483-5774. . If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.
vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Rulings on Contested Motions in Limine. The following are the Court's rulings on the parties' Motions in Limine ("MILs"). Because the following rulings on the motions in limine are based upon evidence known at the present time, these rulings are only tentative and may be subject to change as the evidence unfolds. (See Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 763.) For this reason, all rulings are made without prejudice unless expressly stated otherwise.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ANY MENTION OF PLAINTIFF'S PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS. Ruling. DENIED. The Motion does not identify with particularity evidence to be excluded. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 659). The Court cannot say that the category of evidence is per se excludable.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED PRIOR TO THE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF. Ruling. DENIED. The Motion does not identify with particularity evidence to be excluded. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 659). The Court cannot say that the category of evidence is per se excludable. Depending on the scope of discovery requests, certain evidence may not be responsive - and thus subject to production - to any requests propounded.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE SURVEILANCE FOOTAGE TAKEN OF PLAINTIFF Ruling. DENIED. The Motion does not identify with particularity evidence to be excluded. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 659
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?”
Defense MILs: NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE REGARDING THE POST-INCIDENT STATE OF THE PARKING LOT. Ruling. DENIED. Any concern that the jury could conflate photographs taken in 2021 with those taken during the 2025 inspection does not present a substantial danger of confusion within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352. Defendant is free to cross-examine Mr. Suway on the bases for his opinion that the current state of the parking lot is similar to its condition at the time of the incident.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO AREAS OF THE SUBJECT PARKING LOT THAT WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE INCIDENT. Ruling. GRANTED. The issue to be tried is whether the area where Plaintiff tripped was a dangerous condition, and Defendant's actual or constructive notice of that condition. The condition of other areas of the parking lot is of minimal probative value, and that value os substantially outweighed by probability that admission of such evidence will create undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, and mislead the jury. (Evidence Code Section 352.) Further, admission will cause undue consumption of the jury's time. | Home -->)" -->