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)

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