Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV26690, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26690    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 55

Motions in Limine

Defendant’s MIL No. 1 is granted. Defendant is a public entity. Government Code Section 818 states that “notwithstanding any other provision of law,”  public entities cannot be held liable for punitive damages or “other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Plaintiff seeks treble damages under Labor Code Section 432.7(c), which provides that a “person” may seek treble damages for violations of Section 432.7. But a plain reading of Section 432.7 makes clear that Defendant, a public entity, is not a “person” under Section 432.7(c). Moreover, in general treble damages are considered punitive in nature and Plaintiff has no case law suggesting that the availability of treble damages in Section 432.7(c) deviates from the general rule that such damages are punitive in nature.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2 not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude.  As such, the motion in limine also fails to comply with Local Rule 3.57.  (CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 3.57(a)(1) [“Motions made for the purpose of precluding the mention or display of inadmissible and prejudicial matter in the presence of the jury must be accompanied by a declaration that includes the following: (1) Specific identification of the matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial.”].)  The Court denies the MIL. The moving party may at trial assert an objection to the introduction of specific evidence if and when this issue arises.