Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV42104, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42104    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 47

Ozelia Harris v. Pomona Unified School District, et al., Case No. 20STCV42104

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s MIL #1:      Withdrawn.

Plaintiff’s MIL #2:      seeking exclusion of all references to Defendants’ insurance or lack of insurance or as to how Defendants will pay any compensation to Plaintiff

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s MIL #3:      seeking exclusion of all references to alleged potential effects of a verdict for Plaintiff. 

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED. 

While Plaintiff’s motion is broad, evidence of any potential effects of a verdict on Defendants would be irrelevant and potentially excluded under Evidence Code § 352. 

Plaintiff’s MIL #4:      Withdrawn.

Plaintiff’s MIL #5:      seeking exclusion of written warnings given in 2012 and 2015 and testimony about those warnings and the underlying circumstance.    

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED. 

Defendants oppose the motion on two grounds.  First, they contend that there is insufficient information about what evidence is to be excluded, including that the warnings themselves are not attached.  The Court agrees that the warnings should have been submitted with the motion but finds that the motion adequately describes the warnings and the timing and context in which they were issued.  Second, Defendants argue that the warnings may be admissible to show either lack of discriminatory animus or Plaintiff’s incompetent job performance.  The Court concludes that the warnings at issue are remote in time and do not deal with the kind of retaliation or harassment at issue in this case and, thus, have little to no probative value, unless they are among the “multiple instances of policy violations and substandard performance” that were referred to in the October 5, 2020 written warning.  If they are not listed in that warning, the 2012 and 2016 warnings must be excluded as irrelevant under Evidence Code § 350 and unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code § 352. 

Plaintiff’s MIL #6:      seeking exclusion of two automobile accidents that occurred more than five years ago and the actions Plaintiff filed against the at-fault parties.     

TENTATIVE RULING:  DENIED. 

Defendants oppose the motion arguing that there is insufficient information about what evidence is to be excluded.  The Court agrees that Platiniff should provide additional information about the dates of the accidents and the nature of her injuries, because these facts may be relevant to Plaintiff’s prayer in this case for emotional distress.  Accordingly, on this record, the Court cannot grant the motion. 

Plaintiff’s MIL #7:      seeking exclusion of evidence or comments about any attorney’s fees Plaintiff may recover in this action.   

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s MIL #8:      seeking exclusion of evidence or comments that counsel for Plaintiff is related to any party or witness.      

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s MIL #9:      seeking exclusion of evidence or comments regarding the parties’ financial condition, including Defendant’s ability to pay any judgment.        

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s MIL #10:    seeking exclusion of evidence or argument about certain statements described in the motion.       

TENTATIVE RULING:  DENIED, without prejudice to asserting an objection at trial. 

The Court lacks sufficient information to determine the admissibility of the statements.

Plaintiff’s MIL #11:    seeking exclusion of evidence or argument about Plaintiff’s decision not to call certain witnesses at trial.      

TENTATIVE RULING:  DENIED. 

Defendants’ MIL #1:              seeking exclusion of evidence or argument about complaints make by Plaintiff before and after the January through October 2022 period described in her administrative complaint.       

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

The parties agree that pre-2020 complaints should not be admitted at trial, so the Court adopts that view as well. With respect to subsequent complaints, the Court agrees with Defendant that, unless the conduct at issue in the recent complaints is “like or related” to the retaliation and harassment claims asserted in Plaintiff’s administrative complaint to the DFEH/DCR, they are not actionable in this lawsuit.  (Brown v. City of Sacramento (2019) 37 Cal. App. 5th 587, 600; Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co. (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4^th 1607, 1613-1615.)  Even if the more recent conduct attacked in the complaints is not actionable, it may be admissible for some other purpose.  Because the Court lacks sufficient information about those complaints, which have not been submitted to the Court in support of the motion in limine, it cannot determine whether the recent conduct is “like or related” to the alleged misconduct in the administrative charge or whether it is admissible for some other purpose.  As a result, the Court denies the motion in limine as to those complaints and the underlying conduct they challenge, without prejudice to objections being raised at trial.