Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 19STCV45676, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV45676    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-6-23

Case #19STCV45676

MOTION IN LIMINE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Hussein Kobeissi, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Mike Kobeissi, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion in Limine Number 1

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On August 28, 2016, Plaintiff Sandy Kobeissi and Defendant Hussein Kobeissi telephoned Plaintiff Mike Kobeissi. Sandy and Hussein were in Tujunga California, and Mike was in Lebanon at the time. The conversation involved “illegal sexual acts” allegedly conducted by Plaintiffs Mike and Paul Kobeissi, and Defendants Dan and Brad Kobeissi. Plaintiffs allege Hussein recorded the conversation without the knowledge and consent of Mike and Sandy, and later published/shared the content of the recording with various friends, family, acquaintances, members of the community, etc. beginning in 2018 and continuing within six months of the complaint.

Hussein is the father of Sandy. The other familial relationships are not alleged in the complaint.

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Disclosure of Telegraphic or Telephonic Message, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Injunctive Relief. On July 9, 2020, the action was transferred from Department 27 to Department 1 for reassignment, which led to the assignment to Department 49 on July 14, 2020.

On January 21, 2021, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend on the first and third causes of action for Disclosure of Telegraphic or Telephonic Message, and Injunctive Relief, and overruled the demurrer on the second cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The motion to strike was rendered moot.

On February19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended for Disclosure of Telegraphic or Telephonic Message (California Penal Code section 637.2), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Injunctive Relief. On November 9, 2021, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction barring Dan Kobeissi from publishing, republishing, sharing or resharing the recorded conversation.

On November 24, 2021, the court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint in order to add a a new claim for wrongful death as to the minor child of Mike and Sandy Kobeissi. The second amended complaint for Disclosure of Telegraphic or Telephonic Message (California Penal Code section 637.2), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Injunctive Relief, and Wrongful Death.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Sandy Kobeissi moves to exclude any reference to the prior judgment entered in 18STCV03139 consolidated with 18STCV09532. Plaintiff moves on certain grounds: the judgment is currently on appeal and therefore not final; the judgment constitutes hearsay; the judgment is irrelevant; and, the judgment introduces prejudicial information.

“[A] judgment is not ‘final’ as long as it remains subject to direct attack by appeal, by motion for a new trial, or motion to vacate the judgment. judgment. (Citation.) The phrase has been given that meaning in a variety of appropriate contexts.” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 303.) “The term ‘final judgment’ … means a judgment when all possibility of direct attack thereon by way of (1) appeal, (2) motion for a new trial, or (3) motion to vacate the judgment, has been exhausted.” (Southern Public Utility Dist. v. Silva (1956) 47 Cal.2d 163, 165.) The judgment remains on appeal, and is therefore not final for purposes of introducing any findings or conclusions.

To the extent the judgment is offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the judgment itself, it’s hearsay. Defendants can make an argument for an exception, but it does not appear that the evidence is being offered for purposes of establishing liability. “When the liability, obligation, or duty of a third person is in issue in a civil action, evidence of a final judgment against that person is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered to prove such liability, obligation, or duty.” (Evid. Code, § 1302.) Thus, the judgment stays out of evidence on grounds of hearsay.

The judgment is otherwise arguably relevant in that it reflects on the underlying context of the judgment subject matter. On prejudice, the court finds introduction of the judgment from a judgment on appeal would introduce re-argument on a judgment under appeal.