Case Number: BC485559 Hearing Date: June 02, 2014 Dept: 46

Posted 5-28-2014 at 2:50 p.m.
Updated (in limine motions) 5-29-2014 2:50 p.m.

Case Number: BC485559
KENNY PHUONG TRAN VS JAMES T ALLEN ET AL
Filing Date: 05/29/2012
Case Type: Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending [TRIAL DATE 6-11-2014]

06/02/2014 at 08:32 am in department 46 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Part I

MOTION – TO BIFURCATE

Motion is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §597 inasmuch as determination of the judicial estoppel defense would be potentially dispositive of many, if not all insures in dispute in this action. The judicial estoppel defense is equitable and triable to the court. Therefore the equitable issues will be tried first without a jury and then depending on the results of the trial of the judicial estoppel defense, a jury will be impaneled for the remaining issues.

Part II

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motions

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motion In Limine #1: Preclude the Introduction of any documentary evidence requested but not previously produced in discovery. The motion is DENIED without prejudice to making an objection to particular evidence that is proffered at trial. The court recognizes that upon a proper showing evidence that was withheld during discovery should be excluded as a discovery sanction on the basis that there is unfair surprise. Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241, 254-255; Campain v. Safeway Stores (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 362, 366; Pate v. Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1447, 1454. However, unlike each of those cases here there is no specification of what evidence is being sought to be excluded, how it amounts to unfair surprise, or whether or not there was withholding. How does the court know what evidence was requested, why the evidence was not produced or how the evidence is potentially prejudicial without a specification of the evidence in question. What about evidence that is used for impeachment or rebuttal? Therefore the motion is limine is DENIED WITHTOUT PREJUDICE to renewal upon the proffer of evidence that was requested and not produced. At that time the burden will be on the objecting party to document that the evidence was requested and not produced.

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motion in Limine #2. Motion for order precluding the mention of any insurance coverage. Motion is GRANTED. The parties are ordered not to mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the facts and and/or opinions regarding insurance or insurance coverage, not to make reference to the fact that this motion was filed, and each party is ordered to warn and caution each witness to strictly follow this order. Evidence of insurance is excluded pursuant to E.C. 1155; See also Menefee v. Williams (1968) 259 Cal.app.2d 56, 62.

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motion in Limine #3. Motion for order excluding party from introducing any testimony by any expert witness not previously designated as an expert under CCP 2034.210. Provided that the demand for exchange of experts was timely and proper under CCP Section 2034.210 and that moving party is not in violation of any of the provisions of CCP 2034.300 (a) – (d) or stipulation of the parties with respect to disclosure, the motion is GRANTED pursuant to CCP Section 2034.300 except to the extent that expert testimony may be permitted for limited impeachment as defined by CCP Section 2034.310. The parties are ordered not to mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the facts and and/or opinions regarding undesignated experts, not to make reference to the fact that this motion was filed, and each party is ordered to warn and caution each witness to strictly follow this order.

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motion in Limine #4. Preclude evidence concerning settlement discussions. GRANTED per E.C. 1152 to the extent that the evidence is offered to prove liability for any of the damages caused in the case.

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motion in Limine #5. Bifurcate action and evidence relating to issue of punitive damages. Motion must be GRANTED pursuant to CC 3295. If the cross-complainant is successful on the issue of a finding of clear and convincing evidence of malice as part of the special verdict form that is issued by the jury, then the matter of evidence of and amount of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury in a second phase of trial. Until such time, evidence of the financial condition of Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co. is irrelevant and shall be excluded. The parties are ordered not to mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the facts and and/or opinions regarding the financial condition of the moving party, not to make reference to the fact that this motion was filed, and each party is ordered to warn and caution each witness to strictly follow this order.

Robert Ho and Long Dragon Realty Co’s Motion in Limine #6. Motion to exclude evidence of ethical standards for the National Association of Realtors. Motion is DENIED. While a violation of an ethical standard does not itself constitute a cause of action, evidence of a violation of an ethical standard may be admissible to the extent that the rule was designed to protect persons in cross-complainant’s position as being relevant to whether the realtor failed to exercise requisite competence and diligence. The breach of the standard will depend on expert testimony and evidence of a violation of a rule itself will not be sufficient to prove negligence.

Plaintiff & Cross-Defendant Kenny Phuong Tran and Jayde Tran’s Motions In Limine

Motions #1 through #5 are all GRANTED. The conduct and statements is inadmissible character evidence under E.C. Section 1101 and E.C. Section 352. The parties are ordered not to mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the facts and and/or opinions regarding the marital problems or alleged extramarital affairs, use of derogatory racial terms, participation in unlicensed poker games, alleged prior conduct at commerce casino, instruction to “kill” an acquaintance as made by the moving party, not to make reference to the fact that this motion was filed, and each party is ordered to warn and caution each witness to strictly follow this order.