Judge: David J. Cowan, Case: 18STPB01558, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STPB01558    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: 200

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

WEST DISTRICT - BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE

DEPT. 200

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Estate of Ricardo Holguin, Case No. 18STPB01558 (related to Constructive Trust of Ricardo Holguin, Case No. 19STPB09883)

Trial Date: January 13, 2025, Time: 8:30 a.m.

          On January 3, 2025, Jess Holguin (“Executor”) filed an identical motion in limine in these cases set for trial to exclude expert testimony of Michelle van de Pol, a real estate appraiser, as to market rent at the subject property. The expert’s report is attached to the motion.

          Executor argues the expert report should be excluded because (a) it assumes that the property was properly managed (when it was not -- where Executor was not the owner such that he would have been able to evict certain existing tenants), (b) the expert did not inspect the property to be able to have sufficient foundation to give the opinion, (c) the report is based on an assumption that the property was adequately maintained and (d) there was no legal duty on Executor’s part to rent the property during much of the time in question when he was not then executor.  

          On January 9, 2025, Martin Holguin, Marco Holguin, Alysha Fax, Vanessa McGowan and Richard Holguin (collectively “Objectors”) filed a combined opposition to the motions. Objectors argue that the motion in limine is in effect an improper motion to summarily adjudicate legal issues outside the scope of what the expert would testify concerning, i.e., concerning the duties of Executor. In addition, they argue that the bases for the motion go to the weight to be given to the expert’s report as opposed to its admissibility.

          The Court concurs with Objectors that the motion seeks a ruling related to legal issues concerning Executor’s duties that will be the subject of trial that do not go to the admissibility of the expert report. See also LASC Rule 3.57(b) concerning civil cases equally applicable here. If there was no duty to market the property for certain periods, for sake of argument, the Court can still consider her report as to those times when there was a duty or for parts of the property that were not rented already. That the expert may not have inspected the property and or not know what condition it may have been in would go to the weight to be given to her opinion as opposed to her reliability for purposes of exclusion. The report appears to have sufficient foundation at this point where it references properties she indicates are comparable and the rents charged at those properties. There also appears no prejudice were the Court to hear the testimony to justify granting the motion.

          For these reasons, the Court denies the motions.