Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV38250, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38250    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude all evidence that William Phipps smoked as irrelevant and prejudicial.  Smoking may be relevant to life expectancy.  The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of expert James Dahlgren’s religious practices and beliefs, his prior association with BWell Clinic, and prior court orders about him as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. 

            The expert’s religious practices and beliefs are irrelevant to this case and unduly prejudicial.  If the expert testifies about providing the medical treatments based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, then he may be cross-examined about the basis for those medical treatments.  Likewise, the expert’s past association with BWell Clinic, which does not appear to have treated for asbestos exposure, is not relevant to the expert’s opinions in this case and will cause an undue amount trial time and jury confusion.

            Plaintiffs attach the following court decisions regarding the expert’s prior opinions as Exhibit C:  (1) a 2010 case from a federal court applying Ohio law and Daubert about air emissions from a refinery; (2) a 2011 Sixth Circuit case applying Daubert concerning opinions on exposure to benzene, (3) a 2005 case from a federal court in Louisiana applying Louisiana law and Daubert about exposure to a glycol, (4) a 2009 federal case from Mississippi about pancreatic cancer caused by a chemical agent applying Daubert, (5) a 2007 case from Texas about exposure to creosote applying Texas law, (6) a 2003 federal case from Hawaii about chemical fumigants applying Daubert, (7) a 2008 decision from Los Angeles Superior Court about toxic mold, mildew and fungus, (8) a 2007 decision from New Mexico state court about chemical exposure causing lupus, and (9) a 2007 hearing transcript from a New Mexico state court hearing about some kind of chemical exposure.  Only one case applied California law.  No case involved asbestos.  Therefore, these cases involved different law and different facts.  Allowing examination about these decisions will require significant trial time and confuse the jury, as the parties will spend substantial time explaining the underlying facts of those cases and the expert’s analysis in those cases to try to establish that the situations in these cases were similar or distinct from the situation here.

            The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

            Plaintiffs seek to preclude evidence of damages in the personal injury case.  Given that Defendant also makes this motion, the parties should have been able to stipulate to exclude evidence of these damages. 

            The motion is granted.  The damages awarded in the prior personal injury case is irrelevant to the jury’s decision in this case.

Defendant’s MIL Re Events After May 8, 2022

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of events after May 8, 2022, the day William Phipps died, as irrelevant.  Defendant states Plaintiffs already recovered future damages as a result of their earlier personal injury case, and the only damages remaining are for funeral expense and loss of society.

            This motion is too vague and overbroad.  As Defendant acknowledges, the damages at issue concern events after William Phipps death.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL Re Damages Previously Awarded

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude evidence of damages awarded in the prior personal injury trial as irrelevant.  Defendant argues that because Plaintiffs already recovered damages for William Phipps’ loss of income and medical expenses, Linda Phipps’ loss of consortium, medical expenses, and Plaintiffs’ loss of income, they cannot recover those damages again in this case.  Plaintiffs also made a motion to exclude evidence of damages awarded in the prior case.

            The motion is granted.  The prior damages are irrelevant to the jury’s decision in this case.  The jury will be instructed in this case as to the types of damages it can award in this case.

Defendant’s MIL Re William Phipps’ Pain and Suffering

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of William Phipps’ pain and suffering as irrelevant because he already recovered damages for non-economic damages in the prior personal injury trial.  Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot recover twice for William Phipps’ non-economic damages.  Plaintiffs acknowledge his pain and suffering is no longer an issue but argue that a witness may happen to mention that William Phipps was in pain. 

            Plaintiffs do not identify any element of their case as to which William Phipps’ pain and suffering is relevant.  Testimony about his pain and suffering is irrelevant to the jury’s decision in this case and would be unduly prejudicial as it could encourage the jury to increase a damages award based on his pain and suffering.

            The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL Re Asbestos, Mesothelioma, Cancer

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of asbestos, mesothelioma, and cancer because the cause of William Phipps’ death is irrelevant  According to Defendant, the only issues for trial are the amount of funeral bills and the children’s claims for loss of society.

            This motion is vague and overbroad.  Plaintiffs can provide some context for their damages claims. 

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL Re Grief and Sorrow

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of grief or sorrow related to William Phipps’ death as irrelevant and prejudicial.  According to Defendant, the only issues for trial are the amount of funeral bills and the children’s claims for loss of society.

            In a wrongful death action, “ ‘[f]actors relevant when assessing a claimed loss of society, comfort, and affection may include the closeness of the family unit, the depth of their love and affection, and the character of the deceased as kind, attentive, and loving.’  [Citation.]”  (Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 482, 489.)  But a relative may not recover for grief or sorrow caused by the death of a loved one.  (Ibid.) 

Because Plaintiffs’ grief or sorrow at the death of William Phipps is not a basis for recovery of damages, such evidence would be more prejudicial than probative.  Plaintiffs can establish the closeness of the family, the depth of their love and affection, and the character of William Phipps without evidence of “noncompensable emotional distress” suffered as a result of his death.  (Nelson v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 783, 794.)  Evidence of emotional distress, grief, and sorrow is likely to cause the jury to increase improperly an award of damages based on emotional distress.  (Ibid.)

            The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL Re Evidence Outside CACI 3921

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of damages other than those available for loss of society as set forth in CACI 3921 as irrelevant and prejudicial.  This motion is vague.  The best way to ensure that the jury consider only evidence relevant to the remaining damages claims is through proper jury instructions.

            The motion is denied at this point, subject to jury instructions being decided and without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL Re Grandchildren

            Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of William Phipps’ grandchildren and great-grandchildren as irrelevant and prejudicial because they have no claims in this lawsuit.

            The motion is vague and overbroad.  While the grandchildren and great-grandchildren cannot recover, evidence relating to them may be relevant to establish the closeness of the family and the character of William Phipps.  (Nelson v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 783, 794.) 

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL Re Adopted Children

Defendant Copeland Corporation moves to exclude all evidence of Raymond Phipps and Steven Phipps until they prove William Phipps adopted them.  Defendant seeks a 402 hearing. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, a wrongful death action may be brought by the decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, issue of deceased children, persons who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession, a putative spouse dependent on the decedent, children of the putative spouse dependent on the decedent, stepchildren dependent on the decedent, parents dependent on the decedent, or legal guardians of the decedent if the parents are deceased.  Plaintiffs have the burden of proving they fall into one of these categories.  As an element of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, this is for the jury to decide.

The motion is denied.  

The moving party is to give notice.