#Motion in limine trial

Exhibits regarding a legal theory that would not be argued at trial would be irrelevant. Defendant then brought a motion in limine to block evidence related to that new legal theory. On the eve of trial, Plaintiff tried to add a new legal theory to his complaint, but his motion was denied. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1195, a home seller (“Plaintiff”) sought to regain his property from an equity purchaser (“Defendant”) on the ground that Defendant did not obtain a bond required by Section 1695.17 of the Home Equity Sales Contracts Act (Section 1695.17). Ī motion in limine can make a major impact on a case, though this impact may not be apparent at first. The California Rules of Court specifically prescribe formatting and procedural requirements for motions in limine. The power to bring such motions is well-established in practice and case law. Motions in limine can minimize trial disruption and promote efficiency by permitting the thoughtful resolution of potentially difficult evidentiary issues at the outset, in a manner that may not be possible under the time constraints and pressures of trial. The purpose of these motions is to avoid having to “unring the bell” by objecting to the evidence after the jury sees or hears it. A motion in limine is an evidentiary motion brought on the threshold of trial by which a party seeks to exclude arguably inadmissible or highly prejudicial evidence from trial.