Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 20STUD03132, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STUD03132    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 58

Redwood Mortgage Investors v. Gilerman  20STUD03132

Rulings on motions in limine

Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1:  To exclude evidence, comment, or argument of the alleged invalidity of the foreclosure sale.

            Granted.  Plaintiff Redwood Mortgage Investors (Plaintiff or Redwood) seeks to exclude evidence or argument about the alleged invalidity of the foreclosure sale under which Redwood assumed title of the property involved in this unlawful detainer action.  Redwood argues that Defendant Alexander Gudis (Defendant or Gudis) lacks standing to assert the issue; the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the foreclosure issues in this unlawful detainer; another action on title is on appeal; the foreclosure sale was not postponed; such evidence is irrelevant; and any probative value is outweighed by undue consumption of time, undue prejudice, and confusing the issues. 

            Defendant Gudis does not address most of these issues. 

            Redwood establishes sufficient grounds to maintain this unlawful detainer action, and the Court will not accept Gudis’s invitation to transform it into a quiet title suit.  That matter was filed in a separate case and was dismissed for improper conduct.  Gilerman’s cross-complaint against Redwood does not raise issues of title.   For the reasons set forth in Redwood’s motion, any evidence or argument attacking the validity of the foreclosure sale will be excluded from the unlawful detainer trial. 

.    .    .

Defendant’s motion in limine no. 1:  To exclude evidence of felony conviction.

            Denied.  Defendant Gudis seeks to exclude evidence of three felony convictions in two cases in federal court in Texas in 1999 and 2000.  It appears that the convictions were for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201, which Gudis characterizes as convictions for tax evasion and conspiracy to commit mail fraud.  Gudis acknowledges that Evidence Code section 788 permits evidence of a felony conviction to attack credibility in a civil case, and does not claim that any of the exceptions under that statute apply.  Gudis urges exclusion under Evidence Code section 352 and cites to criminal cases.

            Plaintiff Redwood contends that Gudis has not met his burden under section 352 and that because this is a civil case, the prejudice Gudis suffers is diminished. 

            The Court finds that Gudis’s convictions are probative of the issue here.  Those matters involved dishonest conduct for financial gain, and are relevant to the weight to give to his testimony.  The Court finds that evidence of the convictions is not unduly prejudicial and will not mislead the jury.  Moreover, the Court does not expect that the introduction of such evidence will be unnecessarily time consuming.

Defendant’s motion in limine no. 2:   Whether to try the unlawful detainer case with civil case 19STCV46014.

            Denied.  This is not a motion regarding evidence.  Gudis requests that the Court not proceed with this unlawful detainer action, but rather hear it with the civil action 19STCV46014 originally filed against  Gilerman for judicial foreclosure.  That matter was dismissed; all that remains is a damages cross-action by Gilerman.  Gudis is not a party to the civil action.  This is not a motion in limine, but an effort to seek reconsideration of the denial of a motion to consolidate the two cases.  The Court will not further delay this unlawful detainer matter.