Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV01265, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: 19SMCV01265    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: R

The court is finishing another bench trial today.  Both parties in that case are confident that today will be the last day of trial.  Accordingly, the trial in the instant case is CONTINUED to February 28, 2023 at 10:30.

As to the two in limine motions, the court rules as follows.

Defendants’ MIL 6 is CONTINUED.  Plaintiff is not planning on calling this witness during this phase of the trial and so it is not ripe.  Depending on the outcome of this phase, the witness may or may not be called anyway.  The court notes, however, that defendants make a strong showing that this witness is planning on doing no more than opining on the law or the operation of law to facts concerning duties under the contract, and, to that extent, the testimony would be improper.

Plaintiff’s MIL 2 is DENIED.  To the extent the witness will testify as to custom and practice in the industry, that is proper parol evidence.  Obviously, to the extent plaintiff’s expert is opining on how to do third grade math, the expert is of no help.  And to the extent that the numbers needed for the math are coming solely from assumptions that the expert has been asked to make by counsel, those numbers are of no help either.  But the court does not believe that such is the real gist of the testimony.