Preview
PEGGY CHANG, ESQ. (SBN ¹144364)
BECKMAN, FELLER & CHANG, PC
731 El Cerrito Plaza
El Cerrito, California 94530
3 Telephone: (510) 548-7474
Facsimile: (510) 548-7488
4
Attorneys for Defendant
GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP.
6
ROBERT P. RICH, ESQ. (SBN ¹104822)
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. RICH
1600 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 260
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
0 Telephone: (925) 482-0038
10
I I
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants
GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP.
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SONOMA - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
JUNE BROWNING, an individual, Case No.: SCV-271336
JONATHAN BROWNING, an individual,
ASHLEY MIDDLETON, an individual, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON.
17
PATRICK M. BRODERICK COURTROOM
Plaintiffs, 16
18 v,
DEFENDANT
IN LIMINE ¹I TO BIFURCATE
/CROSS-COMPLAINANT'OTION
19
GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP, a
."alifornia Limited Partnership, AND DOES I PUNITIVE DAMAGES
20
0 30, Inclusive,
21
Defendants. MOTION IN LIMINE ¹I
22
GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP, a
California Limited Partnership,
24 Cross-Complainant, Complaint Filed: August I, 2022
Trial Date: May 17, 2024
25 v
JUNE BROWNING, an Individual, and ROES
I -30, Inclusive.
27
Cross-Defendants
28
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE II I TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIABILITY FROM
DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED
BY DEFENDANT
Defendant Glen Ellen Manor Associates LP, through its attorne, moves this Court pursuant to
2
California Civil Code tj 3295(d) to bifurcate the trial of plaintiffs claims against it, with respect
to liability for punitive damages. Defendant further moves pursuant to California Civil Code tj
4 3295(a), for a protective order precluding Plaintiffs from introducing evidence of or otherwise
5
referring to Defendant's rental income from such other properties owned by Defendant or its
individual partners, until they establish a prima facie case of Defendant's liability for punitive
damages.
Plaintiff s Complaint seeks punitive damages under the claim several causes of action,
I p including for breach of the warranty of habitability, nuisance, constructive eviction, and elder
11 abuse. California Civil Code $ 3295(a) provides that a Court may prohibit the introduction of
evidence of a Defendant's financial condition during the first phase of a bifurcated trial. Such an
13
order is appropriate here as the underlying case arises from maintenance complaints from
occupants in a residential rental property. Not only would evidence of Defendant's financial
15
condition be irrelevant during the first phase of a bifurcated trial, but the discussion of rents from
16
other properties and units other than the one occupied by Plaintiffs could become unduly
prejudicial. It would likely confuse the issues, as rent owed by one plaintiff is being claimed in
19 the cross-complaint and evidence of rents from other units may mislead the jury about the rent at
issue in this case. The consideration of rents from other properties and even other units at the
21
Grove apartments would improperly invade Defendant's financial and privacy rights.
22
II. THIS COURT SHOULD BIFURCATE PLAINTIFFS'UNITIVE DAMAGES
23 CLAIM
24
In any trial in which punitive damages are claimed, bifurcation is mandatory upon motio
25
by a defendant. Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 3295 provides:
"The Court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of
that Defendant's...financial condition until atter the trier of fact returns a verdict for
plaintiff awarding actual damages and find that a defendant is guilty of malice,
28
oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE ¹I TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES I IABILITY FROM
DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED
BY DEFENDANT
California Civil Code g 3295(d) (West Supp. 1997) (emphasis added). As stated by the
2
California Supreme Court, section 3295(d) "requires a court, upon application of any defendant,
to bifurcate a trial so that the trier of fact is not presented with evidence of the defendant's wealt
ad profits until after the issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression, or
6
fraud have been resolved against the defendant." Torres v. Automobile Club of S. Cal., (1997)
7 15 Cal.4th. 771, 777-78.
Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3295(d), Defendant moves this court to bifurcate the trial
9
into two phases for the purpose of the punitive damages claim. In the first phase, the jury must
10
find both: (a) That Defendant is liable for compensatory damages; and (b) that Plaintiff has
proven by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Jackson engaged in malicious,
12
13
oppressive, or fraudulent conduct. Only in the unlikely event that both findings are made will the
jury then proceed to the second phase and decide whether to impose punitive damages and their
I 5 amount.
16
III. A PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD ISSUE PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM
INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS'INANCIAL CONDITION
UNLESS AND UNTIL A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HAS
18 BEEN MADE
19 In addition to bifurcating this trial, Defendant moves this Court to issue a protective orde
prohibiting plaintiffs from introducing evidence of Defendant's financial condition or property
21
ownership until Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of liability for punitive damages
22
24
Defendant'3
under section 3294. Good cause exists to support such an order because evidence of
financial condition is not relevant during the first phase of the bifurcated trial. Defendant is not
claiming it did not make repairs or provide pest services for financial reasons. It's income is
26 unduly prejudicial and the individual partner's financial wealth is constitutionally protected
under l)efendant's right to privacy. If the Plaintiffs attempt to introduce evidence of other
28
properties owned by Defendant or the rents collected from them, it would be inappropriate as an
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE II I TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIABILITY FROM
DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED
BY DEFENDANT
attempt to create bias. Consideration of each party's wealth is not a factor which can be used in
2
weighing claiminats and defendant's credibility. A protective order should preclude mention of
income from other rental properties owned by Defendant as it is irrelevant to the lawsuit
4 involving conditions alleged to exist in the apartment plaintiffs occupied.
Dated: May 9, 2024 I
Peggy h ng, E
Attorney for Defendant
Glenn Ellen Manor Assoc. LP
10
12
13
[PROPOSEDI ORDER
15 The Court atter hearing arguments from counsel for plaintiffs and defendants and upon
considering the law and issues raised in this motion in limine, hereby grants /denies this
I7
motion.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
22 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
23
24
25
28
DEFENDANT'8 MOTION IN LIMINE III TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIABILITY FROM
DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED
BY DEFENDANT
Preview
PEGGY CHANG, ESQ. (SBN ¹144364) BECKMAN, FELLER & CHANG, PC 731 El Cerrito Plaza El Cerrito, California 94530 3 Telephone: (510) 548-7474 Facsimile: (510) 548-7488 4 Attorneys for Defendant GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP. 6 ROBERT P. RICH, ESQ. (SBN ¹104822) LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. RICH 1600 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 260 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 0 Telephone: (925) 482-0038 10 I I Attorneys for Cross-Complainants GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP. 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JUNE BROWNING, an individual, Case No.: SCV-271336 JONATHAN BROWNING, an individual, ASHLEY MIDDLETON, an individual, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON. 17 PATRICK M. BRODERICK COURTROOM Plaintiffs, 16 18 v, DEFENDANT IN LIMINE ¹I TO BIFURCATE /CROSS-COMPLAINANT'OTION 19 GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP, a ."alifornia Limited Partnership, AND DOES I PUNITIVE DAMAGES 20 0 30, Inclusive, 21 Defendants. MOTION IN LIMINE ¹I 22 GLEN ELLEN MANOR ASSOCIATES, LP, a California Limited Partnership, 24 Cross-Complainant, Complaint Filed: August I, 2022 Trial Date: May 17, 2024 25 v JUNE BROWNING, an Individual, and ROES I -30, Inclusive. 27 Cross-Defendants 28 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE II I TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIABILITY FROM DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED BY DEFENDANT Defendant Glen Ellen Manor Associates LP, through its attorne, moves this Court pursuant to 2 California Civil Code tj 3295(d) to bifurcate the trial of plaintiffs claims against it, with respect to liability for punitive damages. Defendant further moves pursuant to California Civil Code tj 4 3295(a), for a protective order precluding Plaintiffs from introducing evidence of or otherwise 5 referring to Defendant's rental income from such other properties owned by Defendant or its individual partners, until they establish a prima facie case of Defendant's liability for punitive damages. Plaintiff s Complaint seeks punitive damages under the claim several causes of action, I p including for breach of the warranty of habitability, nuisance, constructive eviction, and elder 11 abuse. California Civil Code $ 3295(a) provides that a Court may prohibit the introduction of evidence of a Defendant's financial condition during the first phase of a bifurcated trial. Such an 13 order is appropriate here as the underlying case arises from maintenance complaints from occupants in a residential rental property. Not only would evidence of Defendant's financial 15 condition be irrelevant during the first phase of a bifurcated trial, but the discussion of rents from 16 other properties and units other than the one occupied by Plaintiffs could become unduly prejudicial. It would likely confuse the issues, as rent owed by one plaintiff is being claimed in 19 the cross-complaint and evidence of rents from other units may mislead the jury about the rent at issue in this case. The consideration of rents from other properties and even other units at the 21 Grove apartments would improperly invade Defendant's financial and privacy rights. 22 II. THIS COURT SHOULD BIFURCATE PLAINTIFFS'UNITIVE DAMAGES 23 CLAIM 24 In any trial in which punitive damages are claimed, bifurcation is mandatory upon motio 25 by a defendant. Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 3295 provides: "The Court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that Defendant's...financial condition until atter the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and find that a defendant is guilty of malice, 28 oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294." DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE ¹I TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES I IABILITY FROM DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED BY DEFENDANT California Civil Code g 3295(d) (West Supp. 1997) (emphasis added). As stated by the 2 California Supreme Court, section 3295(d) "requires a court, upon application of any defendant, to bifurcate a trial so that the trier of fact is not presented with evidence of the defendant's wealt ad profits until after the issues of liability, compensatory damages, and malice, oppression, or 6 fraud have been resolved against the defendant." Torres v. Automobile Club of S. Cal., (1997) 7 15 Cal.4th. 771, 777-78. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3295(d), Defendant moves this court to bifurcate the trial 9 into two phases for the purpose of the punitive damages claim. In the first phase, the jury must 10 find both: (a) That Defendant is liable for compensatory damages; and (b) that Plaintiff has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Jackson engaged in malicious, 12 13 oppressive, or fraudulent conduct. Only in the unlikely event that both findings are made will the jury then proceed to the second phase and decide whether to impose punitive damages and their I 5 amount. 16 III. A PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD ISSUE PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS'INANCIAL CONDITION UNLESS AND UNTIL A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HAS 18 BEEN MADE 19 In addition to bifurcating this trial, Defendant moves this Court to issue a protective orde prohibiting plaintiffs from introducing evidence of Defendant's financial condition or property 21 ownership until Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of liability for punitive damages 22 24 Defendant'3 under section 3294. Good cause exists to support such an order because evidence of financial condition is not relevant during the first phase of the bifurcated trial. Defendant is not claiming it did not make repairs or provide pest services for financial reasons. It's income is 26 unduly prejudicial and the individual partner's financial wealth is constitutionally protected under l)efendant's right to privacy. If the Plaintiffs attempt to introduce evidence of other 28 properties owned by Defendant or the rents collected from them, it would be inappropriate as an DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE II I TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIABILITY FROM DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED BY DEFENDANT attempt to create bias. Consideration of each party's wealth is not a factor which can be used in 2 weighing claiminats and defendant's credibility. A protective order should preclude mention of income from other rental properties owned by Defendant as it is irrelevant to the lawsuit 4 involving conditions alleged to exist in the apartment plaintiffs occupied. Dated: May 9, 2024 I Peggy h ng, E Attorney for Defendant Glenn Ellen Manor Assoc. LP 10 12 13 [PROPOSEDI ORDER 15 The Court atter hearing arguments from counsel for plaintiffs and defendants and upon considering the law and issues raised in this motion in limine, hereby grants /denies this I7 motion. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 22 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 23 24 25 28 DEFENDANT'8 MOTION IN LIMINE III TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIABILITY FROM DAMAGES AND PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED OR MANAGED BY DEFENDANT