Tyco Thermal Controls, LLC v. Redwood Industrials et al

Filing 481

TENATIVE RULINGS RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 446 , 448 , 456 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 09/25/2012. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 6 7 TYCO THERMAL CONTROLS LLC, 8 Plaintiff, TENTATIVE RULINGS RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 9 v. 10 11 Case Nos. 06-cv-07164 NC 10-cv-01606 NC Re: Dkt. Nos. 446, 448, 456 REDWOOD INDUSTRIALS, LLC, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Tyco Thermal Control, LLC filed this action against defendant Rowe 15 16 Industries, Inc., among others, for recovery of response costs and contribution under the 17 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 18 (CERCLA). The parties now move to exclude or admit certain evidence from trial. Dkt. 19 Nos. 446, 448, 456. The Court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the motions in limine on 20 September 26, 2012. The Court tentatively rules on the motions as follows: Rowe’s Motion in Limine No. 1: Rowe’s motion in limine to exclude all 21 22 evidence of damages relating to building demolition and removal. 23 Tentative Ruling: 24 Denied. The Court finds that whether Tyco’s decision to demolish and remove the 25 building on the Subject Property complied with National Contingency Plan (NCP) 26 requirements is a question of fact suitable for trial. 27 // 28 Case Nos. 06-cv-07164 NC, 10-cv-01606 NC TENATIVE RULINGS RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1 Rowe’s Motion in Limine No. 2: Rowe’s motion in limine to admit the 2 Redwood-Coleman release into evidence without calling Marshall Smalls to testify at 3 trial. 4 Tentative Ruling: 5 Denied. The Court finds that Rowe must first establish a proper foundation for the 6 admission of the Redwood-Coleman release at trial and that Tyco must be given the 7 opportunity to cross-examine the authenticating witness, here Mr. Small, in order to 8 develop the factual record regarding the release. 9 Tyco’s Motion in Limine No. 1: Tyco’s motion in limine to preclude Rowe from 10 offering any evidence or argument that (1) Rowe is not the successor-in-interest to the 11 Hill Magnetics, Hill Industries, and Pacific Transformer entities; and (2) liability of harm 12 caused by Hill Magnetics, Inc. should be apportioned to Energy Systems, Inc. 13 Tentative Ruling: 14 Granted in part and denied in part. The Court finds that the District Court 15 previously held that Rowe is a successor-in-interest to Hill and therefore this matter has 16 previously been determined. This portion of the motion in limine is granted. As to 17 Rowe’s argument that liability for harm caused by Hill Magnetics should be apportioned 18 to third party Energy Systems, this substantive issue has not yet been determined by the 19 Court and is inappropriate for decision by motion in limine and therefore denied. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Date: September 25, 2012 ____________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case Nos. 06-cv-07164 NC, 10-cv-01606 NC TENATIVE RULINGS RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?