Judge: Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case: 20STCV21515, Date: 2023-04-03 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
Case Number: 20STCV21515 Hearing Date: April 3, 2023 Dept: D
4/3/23
Dept.
D
Rafael
Ongkeko, Judge presiding
|
TRIAL: Nastassia Campbell
v. Rick Reed and LBUSD
(20STCV21515) |
|
|
P’s MILs:
P’s MILs 1, 2, AND 4:
MIL #1: TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, REFERENCE OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF RECEIVED TREATMENT ON A LIEN
Tentative ruling: MIL #1: DENY.
PLAINTIFF’S MIL #2: TO
EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT, OR REFERENCE TO INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT RATES
FOR MEDICAL SERVICES (e.g. Medi-Cal, Medicaid, Blue
Cross, etc.)
Tentative ruling: MIL
#2: DEFER. What is Deft. proffer re
reasonable value? Establish relevance to
Plaintiff and proper foundation. O/W
defer?
PLAINTIFF’s MIL # 4: TO
EXCLUDE ANY AND ALL REFERENCE TO AND EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY REFERRALS
TO DOCTORS
Tentative ruling: MIL #4: DENY.
PLAINTIFF’S MIL #3: EXCLUDE
ANY ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT CALL ALL TREATING EXPERTS TO
TESTIFY AT TRIAL.
Tentative ruling: DENY as
premature, without prejudice to a trial objection.
PLAINTIFF’s MIL #5: EXCLUDE
ANY AND ALL REFERENCE TO AND EVIDENCE OF SUB ROSA MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFF
Tentative ruling:
GRANT/DENY in part.
GRANT exclusion of any subrosas
that existed up until close of discovery (date
__?_ ).
DENY
as to subrosas obtained thereafter subject to a 402 of videographer/editor/etc.
regarding authentication, foundation, relevance, and 352 issues based on
proffer and actual content to establish close-of-discovery argument and
possibly any privacy issues. Initially,
there will be no required disclosure of all footage; all issues regarding
selective taping are still subject to cross but are not preconditions to
publication and admissibility. However,
in rebuttal, Ps must then establish that the selected clips shown are somehow
misleading or need to be shown to comply with EC 356’s completeness doctrine
and to explain why the clips are taken out of context or misleading.
Plaintiff’s MILs 8, 10, 22, and 26:
Plaintiff’s MIL #8 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO OR EVIDENCE OF
PLAINTIFF’S DRIVING RECORDS AND OTHER VEHICLE COLLISIONS INVOLVING PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff’s MIL #10:
EXCLUDE ANY OPINIONS ON CAUSATION UNLESS THEY MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD
Tentative ruling: Deny as
non-specific; w/o prejudice to a trial objection.
Plaintiff’s MIL #22 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF HAS ANOTHER PERSONAL INJURY CASE IN LITIGATION.
Tentative ruling:
Plaintiff’s MIL #26 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN IN OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS
Tentative ruling: GRANT as
to prior accidents, without prejudice to a 402.
Plaintiff’s MILs 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24:
Plaintiff’s MIL #16 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF NEVER LEFT TRAINING PHASE AT AMAZON FULFILLMENT CENTER
Tentative ruling: Withdraw
as MOOT? No LOE claimed? O/w: Deny as non-specific without prejudice
to a trial objection.
Plaintiff’s MIL #17 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS ON SHORT TERM DISABILITY.
Tentative ruling: Withdraw
as moot? No LOE claimed.
Plaintiff’s MIL #20 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF
DROPPED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL
Tentative ruling: Withdraw
as moot? No LOE.
Plaintiff’s MIL #21 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF HAS AN EMPLOYMENT CASE IN LITIGATION
Tentative ruling: Withdraw
as moot? No LOE.
Plaintiff’s MIL #23 TO PRECLUDE ANY STATEMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF IS
UNEMPLOYABLE
Tentative ruling: Withdraw
as moot? No LOE.
Plaintiff’s MIL #24 TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT
PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED FROM AND/OR SET UP TO BE FIRED FROM PELICAN HILLS
Tentative ruling: Withdraw
as moot? No LOE.
Plaintiff’s MIL #25 TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF LITIGATED A SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST STATER BROTHERS.
Tentative ruling: Unopposed.
Grant.
Plaintiff MIL #27: TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF’S COUSIN IS HOMELESS
Tentative ruling: Unopposed.
Grant.
Plaintiff MIL #29: TO
PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE AUTO
INSURANCE
Tentative ruling: Unopposed.
Grant.
Plaintiff MIL #30: TO PRECLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A DRIVERS’ LICENSE
Tentative ruling: Unopposed. Grant.
Plaintiff MIL #32; TO PRECLUDE
ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, OR EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF’S BOYFRIEND DROVE BEHIND
HER AND TOOK SOMETHING FROM HER TRUNK
Tentative ruling: DEFER to
trial.
Plaintiff MIL #33: TO
EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF LIVED AT HER MOTHER’S HOUSE
Tentative ruling: Unopposed. Grant without prejudice to a 402.
Plaintiff MIL #34: TO
EXCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT STUDENTS OR TEACHERS WILL BE HARMED BY A JUDGMENT.
Tentative ruling: Unopposed. Grant.
DEFENDANTS’ MILs 1-4.
Hear 1 and 2 together:
Defendants’ MIL #1: TO
EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE THAT CONSTITUTE “REPTILE TACTICS”
Tentative Ruling:
1.
DENY in part. MIL is too vague. Denial is without prejudice to raising an
objection to specific argument made by Plaintiff that arguably replaces an
applicable legal standard in this case.
If more closely aligned to Golden Rule/community or self-interest
argument, OR PRECONDITIONING during voir dire, the court will sustain a timely
objection from the defense.
2.
GRANT in part as to “golden rule.”
Ds’ MIL#2: TO EXCLUDE preconditioning VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
REFERRING A SPECIFIC DOLLAR FIGURE FOR DAMAGESTENTATIVE RULING:
Tentative ruling:
GRANT, no specific dollar figure during voir dire
or opening statement.
Suggest alternatives: Any caps/upper limit, no matter the evidence? “substantial”, 7 figures - are permissible.
Ds’ MIL #3: TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE REGARDING RICK REED’S FACEBOOK POSTS
Tentative ruling: GRANT. Insufficient proffer
by Plaintiff; and 352- substantially more prejudicial than probative.
Ds’ MIL #4: TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE AND CLAIMS PLAINTIFF SUSTAINED A T.B.I.
Tentative ruling: Unopposed. GRANT.