Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Motions in Limine

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Garner v. BNSF Railway Co. (2024) 98 Cal. App. 5th 660

The trial court erred in granting defendant's in limine motions to exclude plaintiff's expert's testimony that his employment-related exposure to diesel fuel fumes and particulate matter was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkins lymphoma.  To testify regarding causation, the experts did not have to rely on published epidemiological studies liking diesel fuel exposure to lymphoma.  There are many reasons… Read More

Vargas v. Gallizzi (2023) 2023 WL 6781376

Defendant denied requests for admission that certain hospital records were authentic and business records.  This decision holds that the trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff the cost of proving the records were business records under CCP 2033.420. The trial court erred in denying those costs on the ground that plaintiff did not prove the records were business records… Read More

Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021)

The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint in response to the trial court's ruling, before trial, on a motion in limine that plaintiff could not introduce evidence of attorney fees as damages under the tort of another theory because those damages were not alleged in the complaint.  Plaintiff sought leave to amend to… Read More

Plascencia v. Deese (2021)

The trial court prejudicially erred in granting plaintiff's in limine motion to exclude defendant from introducing evidence and seeking allocation of fault to two defendants (the State of California and an adjoining landowner) which had settled out of the case before trial.  Under Prop. 51, a defndant is entitled to have the jury allocate fault (and thus the share of… Read More

Reales Investment, LLC v. Johnson (2020)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering an in limine motion that effectively prevented plaintiff from presenting any evidence at trial.  Plaintiff had not complied with the superior court's local rule requiring an exchange of exhibits and witness lists a week before trial.  Also, plaintiff had not responded to defendant's written discovery or presented its witnesses for… Read More

Kinda v. Carpenter

A trial judge has discretion to dispose of a case or claim on the merits in the course of ruling on a motion in limine, but must do so using the normal nonsuit standard of review.  Read More