Davis v. Hollins Law

Filing 81

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/28/14: Court Trial RESET for 4/8/2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff's motion in limine #1 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion in limine #2 is GRAN TED. Defendant's motion in limine #1 is GRANTED. Defendant's motion in limine #2 is DENIED. Defendant's motion in limine #3 is DENIED. Defendant's motion in limine #4 is GRANTED. Defendant's motion in limine #5 is GRANTED. Defendant's motion in limine #6 is GRANTED. Defendant's motion in limine #7 is GRANTED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL DAVIS,

12
13
14

No. CIV. S-12-3107 LKK/AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

HOLLINS LAW, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION,

15
Defendant.
16
17

Plaintiff’s

and

defendant’s

respective

motions

in

limine

18

were originally set for hearing on March 3, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

19

However,

20

hearing thereon. (ECF Nos. 79, 80.) Accordingly, the court herein

21

decides

22

important to recognize that the trial will be to the court.

the

the

parties

motions

subsequently

based

on

the

stipulated

parties’

to

vacate

briefs.

the

It

is

23

The court hereby orders as follows:

24

[1] For administrative reasons, trial in this matter,

25

currently set for March 18, 2014, is CONTINUED to April 8,

26

2014. The trial will commence at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4.

27
28
1

1

[2] Plaintiff’s motion in limine #1, “To exclude Defendant,

2

its witnesses, and its attorneys from mentioning within the

3

hearing of the jury, including in jury instructions, the

4

availability of an award of attorneys’ fees should Plaintiff

5

prevail,” is DENIED.

6
7

[3] Plaintiff’s motion in limine #2, “To exclude Defendant

8

from asking questions and making any reference to

9

Plaintiff’s character, including Plaintiff’s other debt,” is

10

GRANTED, except that defendant is permitted to inquire into,

11

and introduce evidence regarding, the amount of Plaintiff’s

12

other debt and the purposes for which it was incurred.

13
14

[4] Defendant’s motion in limine #1, “To exclude Plaintiff’s

15

deposition testimony during Plaintiff’s case-in-chief,” is

16

GRANTED.

17
18

[5] Defendant’s motion in limine #2, “To exclude any

19

transcription of the voicemail message allegedly left by

20

defendant Hollins Law,” is DENIED.

21
22

[6] Defendant’s motion in limine #3, “To exclude any

23

recording of the voicemail message allegedly left by

24

defendant Hollins Law,” is DENIED.

25
26

[7] Defendant’s motion in limine #4, “To exclude Plaintiff’s

27

wife Margaret Davis from testifying as a witness for

28

Plaintiff,” is GRANTED.
2

1
2

[8] Defendant’s motion in limine #5, “To exclude any

3

evidence of non-adjudicated complaints against Defendant

4

Hollins Law,” is GRANTED.

5
6

[9] Defendant’s motion in limine #6, “To exclude evidence

7

that contradicts Plaintiff’s admission that he ‘gave consent

8

to HOLLINS LAW to COMMUNICATE with Plaintiff regarding the

9

collection of the ALLEGED DEBT,’” is GRANTED.

10
11

[10] Defendant’s motion in limine #7, “To exclude evidence

12

that contradicts Plaintiff’s admission that ‘Upon hearing

13

the voice message, transcribed as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s

14

Complaint, Plaintiff understood that it was from a debt

15

collector by combining the message itself with Plaintiff’s

16

prior knowledge that Defendant was a debt collector,’” is

17

GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED:

February 28, 2014.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3