Judge Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case 20STCV17626 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Note:
The court's tentative rulings, as posted, will not have the same formatting "look" as the court's original Word version.
A pdf version of the latter will be available in court to those appearing in person or by email upon request made to the clerk before the hearing for those appearing remotely.
Dept. D contact information:
Email: samdeptd@lacourt.org.
Phone: (310) 255-2483

P MIL #1: TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT OF THE ALLEGED ABSENCE OF OTHER INCIDENTS

RULING: Depends. HEAR ARGUMENT.

Is Plaintiff’s theory of dangerous condition based on only WET conditions?

Will Plaintiff himself open the door to whether there was any inspection, maintenance, etc. and record-keeping? If so, how will D counter?

PROBABLE RULING: Assuming foundation is laid, DENY. Give limiting instruction that it does not prove lack of negligence; only lack of actual notice. Formal inspection and maintenance records may not be necessary if there is substantial similarity in the condition of the domes, regardless of whether wet or dry. It is reasonable to assume that there were wet days between 2014 and 2020 when the store would have been open.

P MIL #2: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT CINDY WHANG’S HEALTH OR MEDICAL CONDITIONS

RULING: GRANT IN PART; DENY IN PART. Unless there is evidence that her health affected the installation, maintenance, and other dome-related issues, grant in part and exclude such evidence.

However, deny in part, with a limiting instruction that the jury is not to consider her health condition for any other purpose but her presence or absence at trial. Defense can ask a leading and broad question that her health may not allow her to be present at trial without eliciting specifics.

D MIL #1: STIP: PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO LIABILITY INSURANCE

RULING: Grant as stipulated- COURT TO SIGN AND ENTER STIPULATED ORDER.

D MIL #2 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE GOLDEN RULE AND REPTILE THEORY ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE

RULING: GRANT as to Golden Rule, i.e., asking jurors to place themselves in Plaintiff’s shoes or how much they would take in P’s place. Anything else, too general. DEFER to trial without prejudice to raising objection to specific argument concerning attempts to replace the proper legal standards. If more closely aligned to Golden Rule/community or self-interest/self-protection argument, or preconditioning during voir dire, will sustain as improper if an objection is made.

D MIL #3: MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO PRECLUDE LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY REGARDING MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS, PROGNOSIS AND CAUSATION

RULING: DENY as far as plaintiff’s own testimony, for “garden variety” emotional distress; GRANT as to other lay witnesses without proper foundation.

D MIL #4: (stip) EXCLUDE AMOUNTS ADJUSTED OR WRITTEN OFF OF MEDICAL BILLS PURSUANT TO HOWELL

RULING: GRANT, if used to prove negligence or dangerous condition.

Any other use, court will reconsider ruling without prejudice to a trial objection.

D MIL #6: EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S NON-RETAINED EXPERT, DR. NATHANAEL SABBAH, FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL (or to his opinions)

D MIL #7: EXCLUDE WITNESSES NOT PROPERLY DISCLOSED BY PLAINTIFF IN WRITTEN DISCOVERY, CLAUDIA RAMIREZ