Judge: Gregory W. Alarcon, Case: 19STCV03217, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV03217    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 96

19STCV03217

MADISON CASTELLANOS, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, CLAUDIA MORALES vs LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al

The Court has read and considered the following motions in limine and oppositions and will rule as follows:

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1: To Prohibit Argument about Testimony that Never Occurred.

Denied. Object at trial if necessary or respond in rebuttal.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No.2 to follow CCP 222.5.

Granted.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3: Allow Publishing of Exhibits.

Denied. Request at trial with a proper foundation to publish admissible documents.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to allow treating physicians to testify to causation.

Denied. Lay a foundation and allow opposing counsel to object.  Recommend a meet and confer.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude lack of prior incidents at the relevant location.

Denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude fact LA Community College is a public entity.

Denied after a 352 balancing. Object at trial should there be improper argument re taxpayer liability.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine

Defendant’s Motions in Limine No. 1 exclude evidence of spoilation.

Granted.  After 352 balancing based on the papers and documents filed.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2: to exclude evidence of emotional distress.

Denied.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence of phantom limb syndrome.

Denied. Object at trial if foundation not laid.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude Brad Avrit testifying to accident reconstruction, human factors, childcare supervision, facility safety, and biomechanics. No opposition filed.

Denied. Object at trial re foundation and scope of expertise.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude Enrique Rivera testifying to accident reconstruction, human factors, childcare supervision, facility safety, and biomechanics. No opposition filed.

Denied. Object at trial re foundation and scope of expertise.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude sympathy, passions, and prejudice.

Denied. Object at trial.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude legal conclusions.

Denied. Object at trial.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to exclude liability insurance.

Granted.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 9 requesting 24-hour notice re witnesses.

Moot. Stipulated to by the parties.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 10 to exclude evidence not previously produced in discovery.

Meet and confer, find out if there is such evidence, and then object.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No.11 to exclude expert opinions not expressed in depositions.

Meet and confer, find out if there is such Kennemur evidence, and then object.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 12 to exclude size of Defendant’s law firm.

Granted. Evidence Code Section 210

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial.

Denied.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 14 to exclude Plaintiff from testifying.  No opposition.

Denied. Object at trial.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 15 to exclude future earnings of a 9-year-old with no relevant experts designated.  No opposition.

Granted.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 16 to exclude pretrial discovery attempts to seek video footage.  No opposition.

Granted. Evidence 210, 352