Case Number: BC469299    Hearing Date: September 15, 2014    Dept: 46

Case Number: BC469299
BRIAN RANDONE ET AL VS GINA MARIE PIGOTT ET AL
Filing Date: 09/09/2011
Case Type: Other Compl-not Tort or Complex (General Jurisdiction)

09/15/2014
Motion to Further Bifurcate Trial & Final Status Conference

Motion to Bifurcate Alter Ego claims. DENIED. The motion to further bifurcate the trial of this matter is denied. It does not appear to the court that trial of the alter ego status of parties will result in any the savings of any time in the ultimate determination of the case.

Matter remains set for court trial on the first bifurcated issue of validity of the assignment on 10/01/2014.

Final Status Conference. Parties did not comply with Case Management Order. As such the case is not ready for trial. Further FSC will be set with orders to comply. The court received no witness lists, exhibits, exhibit lists, or anything else other than four sketchy motions in limine from Plaintiff that were filed on 05/13/2014. There are no oppositions filed to the motions in limine.

Motion in Liminie #1: GRANTED. No party or attorney or witness may reference the criminal charges brought against Randone or the facts and circumstances relating to the crime and all parties and attorneys are ordered to make witnesses aware in advance of this order. Plaintiffs stipulate that Defendants had a right to terminate the contract. No party or attorney or witness may reference the criminal charges brought against Randone or the facts and circumstances relating to the crime as a basis for the right to terminate the contract and all parties and attorneys are ordered to make witnesses aware in advance of this order.

Motion in Liminie #2: DENIED without prejudice to a particular objection to a particular writing. The motion is too vague as to what specific evidence is sought to be excluded. The court must make a ruling as to each “document, contract, policy, memorandum not signed by, changed or modified by Randone, or not received by Randone” that is the subject of this motion. Further the court must hear a ground for the exclusion of each writing and an offer of proof as to each writing to judge whether such is relevant or otherwise admissible.

Motion in Limine #3: DENIED without prejudice to a particular objection to a particular writing for the same reasons as Motion in Limine #2.

Motion in Limine #4: DENIED without prejudice to a particular objection to a particular proffer of evidence of custom and usage and evidence of the terms sought to be explained by expert testimony. Civil Code 1645 states that “Technical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate, unless clearly used in a different sense.” The court cannot evaluate in limine whether or to what extent expert testimony would be relevant or admissible to define such terms as “commission split” or “termination of sub-agency.” The court agrees that the evidence would not be admissible to contradict clear terms of the agreement between the parties as to the meaning of the terms.