Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 147

FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/24/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11

ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 5:13-cv-03387-EJD

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12

FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

v.
13
14

Re: Dkt. Nos. 115, 118, 121

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

The Court rules on Defendants’ motions in limine as follows:

18

1.

Defendants’ third motion to exclude evidence of attorneys’ fees and costs (Dkt. No.

19

115) is GRANTED. “The award of attorneys’ fees [and costs] is a matter of law for the judge, not

20

the jury.” Brooks v. Cook, 938 F.2d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 1991).

21
22
23

2.

Defendants’ sixth motion to exclude evidence or argument related to injunctive

relief Williams obtained (Dkt. No. 118) is GRANTED.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if: “(a) it has any tendency to

24

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of

25

consequence in determining the action.” Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence

26

can be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair

27

prejudice,” or “confusing the issues,” or if it misleads the jury, causes undue delay, or wastes time.

28

1
Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

The Court finds that the injunctive relief Williams obtained is irrelevant to whether Wells Fargo

2

breached the loan contract. Such evidence also poses a high risk of prejudice to Wells Fargo,

3

because it could lead the jury to assume that the Court has already decided the merits of

4

Williams’s breach-of-contract claims.

5

3.

Defendants’ eighth motion to exclude evidence of “widespread incompetence in the

6

lending industry,” ”Wells Fargo’s recent settlement relating to the opening of credit card

7

accounts,” and Wells Fargo’s size and finances (Dkt. No. 121) is GRANTED. The Court finds that

8

this evidence is irrelevant to Williams’s contract claims and it poses a high risk of prejudice to

9

Wells Fargo.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE