Judge: Michael Small, Case: BC720469, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: BC720469    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 57

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANT ELIAS AZIZ-LAVI

MIL # 1  

GRANTED on May 17, 2024

MIL # 2   Exclude Testimony by Plaintiffs' Experts Regarding Any Damages Caused by Aziz-Lavi and the Amount of Any Such Damages

Denied.     This MIL would preclude the experts from testifying that the Defendants writ large, include Aziz-Lavi, caused the amount of damages to which expert Renee Howdeshell testified.     

MIL # 3  

Granted on April 12, 2204

MIL # 4   Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Conspiracy Claim 

This is not a proper motion in limine.  It is the stuff of a motion for summary adjudication, which the Court denied last month. 

MIL # 5  Exclude Expert Testimony of Ziegler  Regarding Aziz-Lavi's Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

Denied.  Whether Aziz-Lavi owed a duty to Plaintiffs is a legal question for the Court.  He did.  It is a fiduciary duty.   Ziegler can testify that Aziz-Lavi breached that duty even though Plaintiffs are not suing him for breach of fiduciary duty.  Her testimony speaks to Plaintiff's claim for negligence against Aziz-Lavi, one element of which is whether he breached a duty owed to Plaintiffs. 

MIL # 6   Exclude Evidence  Regarding Subpoena to Aziz-Lavi and His Untimely Response Thereto. 

Denied. Sweeps too broadly   MIL would preclude Plaintiffs evidence that the documents Aziz-Lavi produced were produced.  Denial of this MIL is not in conflict with the Court’s ruling grant MIL # 1.

MIL # 7  Exclude Testimony by Plaintiffs’ Experts That Was Not Included In Their Deposition Testimony or Designations

 Denied.  This is not a proper subject of a motion in limine for it simply seeks an order telling the experts that they have to comply with the law governing the scope of expert testimony at trial.  If Aziz-Lavi believes that the Plaintiffs’ experts are not comply with that law, he can make that objection at specific testimony offered at trial.

 MIL  #  8

 Withdrawn.  Denied without prejudice.

 MIL # 9   

There was no # 9

 MIL # 10  Exclude Evidence Related to Allegation that Aziz-Lavi Incorporate Athletix Fabrics for the Hersel Parties

 Denied. It is for the jury to decide whether Aziz-Lavi, through his son, did this incorporation.

 MIL # 11   Exclude Evidence that Aziz-Lavi Was a Business Advisor To the Plaintiffs

 Denied.  At this point, it is for the jury to hear the evidence bearing on this issue.   

 MIL # 12   Exclude Village Elder Evidence

 Denied.    Same as MIL # 11.

 MIL # 13  Exclude Evidence Regarding Any Conspiracy Engaged in By Aziz-Lavi Beyond Conspiring to Violate Hersel’s Fiduciary Duty

 Denied.  This is an improper MIL.  If Aziz-Lavi believes that Plaintiffs offer testimony or evidence at trial that strays beyond the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint as to the conspiracy claim, he can object to that specific testimony or evidence