GARY ROBINSON 310-398-0000

C/O

El Castillo

12000 Washington Blvd.

Culver City, CA 90232

Plaintiff in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

West Los Angeles

1633 Purdue Avenue,

Los Angeles, CA 90025

GARY ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

DANIEL LUCHANSKY,

Does one through ten inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 01T02053

Final Status Conference : 10-28-03 2 PM

Dept. No. 93

plaintiff's motion In limine to exclude inadmissible Evidence (Defendant’s copy)

 

Trial date: 10-29-03 at 10:30 AM

 

Plaintiff moves to exclude testimony and other evidence relating to following matters as inadmissible and prejudicial:

(1). Evidence relating to affirmative defenses or implying the existence of affirmative defenses not plead in defendant’s answer.

(2). Any reference to Defendant’s building’s security policy.

(3). Evidence relating to the police investigation of the incident, which was initiated by the plaintiff.

 

 

 

(1). Evidence relating to affirmative defenses or implying the existence of affirmative defenses.

Defendant’s answer to the complaint was filed on June 14, 2001. Defendant uses a general denial form. He generally denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s complaint and checks box 2.

Box two states "Defendant states the following Facts as separate affirmative defenses to plaintiff’s complaint: " Under this box he states "Any harm allegedly suffered by the plaintiff was caused by the plaintiff himself."

Such statement does not constitute an affirmative defense, but merely restates the general denial. A proper affirmative defense would be self defense or defense of others. Defendant’s answer states neither of these or any other.

Defendant should be prevented from bringing these or any other affirmative defense up, for the first time, at trial. He should also be prevented from implying the existence of these.

 

(2). Any reference to Defendant’s building’s security policy should be excluded.

In response Question 2 of Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories about the incident of the suit, Defendant states that he "went downstairs to the front entrance to get the pizza per management rules concerning security of the building."

Evidence relating to building security policy should be suppressed for the following reasons:

    1. It implies the existence of an affirmative defense not plead. (See (1)).
    2. Evidence relating to building security was not declared in Defendant’s response to the request for the statement identifying witnesses and evidence.
    3. Defendant’s testimony relating the building security policy would necessarily require reference to oral or written statements of building management. These statements would constitute inadmissible hearsay.

 

 

Such evidence would be prejudicial in the following ways:

    1. References to building security policy could imply in the minds of the jury that an affirmative defense exists.
    2. It implies that the Defendant’s battery was justified or excusable.
    3. It implies that building management has imposed a duty upon the Defendant as a condition of his lease to use force to enforce the buildings security.
    4. It implies that building management could hold Defendant liable for not using force to enforce building security.

(3). Evidence relating to the police investigation of the incident, which was initiated by the plaintiff and the plaintiff only, should be suppressed.

Such evidence should be suppressed as being irrelevant and prejudicial for the following reasons:

    1. References to the police investigation and final disposition have no probative value because
      1. the burden of proof for criminal cases is hight than that of civil cases, and
      2. whether the city attorney accepts a case is purely within the discretion of the city attorney and may involve such irrelevant factors as time and resource allocation.
    1. Such references would be prejudicial because, they would imply
      1. that because the city attorney rejects a criminal case that the civil case has no merit, and
      2. that the police being professionals would necessarily have done a more thorough job of investigating the case than that of the defendant.

A copy of this motion is being sent to the you for comment. If the you stipulates to not mentioning any of the above matters at trial, I will supply the court with a revised motion, promptly. If you do not respond, I will assume that you will not make such stipulation. Call me at (310)398-0000.

Dated _____________ _________________________________ Gary Robinson
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1