Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV13775, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV13775, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV13775 Hearing Date: November 15, 2024 Dept: 29

Pelayo v. Singh
21STCV13775
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Trial Testimony of Plaintiff’s Experts

Tentative

The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On April 12, 2021, Juan Pelayo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Ranjit Singh, individually and d.b.a. Gora Transport (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident on June 10, 2019.

On July 6, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

Trial is set for December 2, 2024.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300 provides that if certain conditions are satisfied, and subject to certain exceptions, “the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to … [m]ake that expert available for a deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300, subd. (d).) The trial court also has inherent authority to exclude evidence when a party has acted unfairly and prejudice would result to the other party. (Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 401, 428.)¿

Discussion

Defendant moves to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts Brendan Bourdage, Ph.D. and John Smith P.E. (Fang Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4.)

In cases assigned to the Personal Injury Hub, the case will be tried by a different judge than the one assigned to rule on this motion. The trial judge makes the decisions regarding requests to preclude any witness, including an expert witness, from testifying. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300.) And, indeed, Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine (No. 4) to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Smith.

There is no need for two judges to rule on the same motion. The motion is properly one for the trial court to rule on, whether through a motion in limine or other timely objection by Defendant. This request for exclusion of testimony is one for the trial judge to make.

Accordingly, motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion of Defendant Ranjit Singh, individually and d.b.a. Gora Transport to exclude Plaintiff’s Experts’ Testimony.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.