Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 08/17/2026 Court Trial Day 1 in Department 10C

Tentative Ruling

Tentative Rulings on Parties’ Motions In Limine [Defendant’s oppositions relying on Sac. Co. Superior Court Local Rules (Local Rules), rule 2.95 are not well taken – Local Rules, rule 2.95, subd. (B), requires motions in limine and oppositions to be filed two days before trial. It appears Plaintiff’s motions in limine were filed in compliance with this requirement.]

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

No. 1

PARTIALLY GRANTED [To Exclude Defense Witness Sutliffe Testimony], insofar as such testimony will not be allowed as to how Sacramento County trial courts have ruled prior partition actions.

No. 2

GRANTED [Statute of Frauds], insofar as Defendant’s reliance on Engasser v. Jones (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 171 is misplaced: Engasser is a buy/sell specific performance remedy case; it does not appear that the facts of the instant case are similar; they are distinguishable.

No. 3

GRANTED [Withheld Discovery (Written Agreement(s))], insofar as Defendants do not oppose. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Amended Motion-in-Limine No. 3 (Withheld Discovery) on August 11, 2026, adding one paragraph citing to the Statute of Frauds, but otherwise not altering the legal basis of the motion. (See Pl.’s Amd. Mo.-in-Limine No. 3, at 2:15-22.)

No. 4

GRANTED [Parole Evidence], insofar as Defendant’s Opposition essentially and merely relies on what appears to be a rhetorical question (see Opp. to Pl.’s Mo. in Limine No. 4 (Parole Evid.), at 2:19-20) and cites to no legal authority in opposing.

No. 5

RESERVED [Collateral Agreement Rule]. Plaintiff relies on LEG Investments v. Boxler (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 484 in support of this motion. Plaintiff directs the Court to pincite 509. First, there is no reference in this opinion to a so-called “Collateral Agreement Rule;” additionally, there is no Page 509.

34-2022-00327207-CU-OR-GDS: Robert Jantzen vs. Hia Xia Lee 08/17/2026 Court Trial Day 1 in Department 10C

No.6

DENIED [Equal Dignities Rule], as the Court agrees with Defendant that no agency issues appear to be raised in the instant matter. (Cf: McGirr v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 247 (cited by Plaintiff) [written authorization required for agent to enter into agreement required to be in writing by law (see Civ. Code, § 2309).] Plaintiff’s reply is unavailing because it misstates the “equal dignities rule” by stating the “fundamental principle” under that rule is that “any contract relating to real estate must be in writing ” (See Pl.’s Reply in Support of Mo.-in- Limine No. 6 (Equal Dignities Rule), at 2:7-8.)

Defendants’ Motions in Limine

None have been filed.