San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- San Diego County Credit Union v. Cefcu (2023-04-21) — remanded; San Diego County Credit Union v. Cefcu (2023-04-21) — remanded — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff San Diego County Credit Union filed an ex parte request for the court to rule on its motion to exclude the testimony of expert Dr. On Amir prior to a bench trial. The court denied the request, concluding that pre-trial rulings on the admissibility of evidence are generally superfluous in the context of a bench trial.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's ex parte request for the Court to issue an order on its motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. On Amir.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES SDCCU’s ex parte request.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the remaining cause of action is to be tried by the court (bench trial). It relies on the principle that motions in limine are primarily designed to protect a jury from prejudicial evidence and are therefore often inapplicable or superfluous in bench trials, where the judge can weigh the evidence and disregard unreliable testimony. This is a standard procedural approach in federal litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the nature of the upcoming trial (bench trial) and applies the well-established principle that pre-trial motions in limine are often unnecessary in such proceedings because the judge can evaluate the weight and admissibility of evidence during the trial itself. The citations support the conclusion that ruling on the exclusion of expert testimony before a bench trial is superfluous.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT Case No.: 18cv967-GPC(RBB) UNION, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX Plaintiff, 13 PARTE REQUEST FOR COURT TO v. ISSUE ORDER ON ITS MOTION TO 14 EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. ON CITIZENS EQUITY FIRST CREDIT 15 AMIR UNION, 16 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 272.] 17 18 Plaintiff filed an ex parte request for the Court to rule on its motion to exclude 19 testimony of Dr. On Amir because Defendant intends to call Dr. Amir as a witness at 20 trial. (Dkt. No. 272.) Defendant filed a response and Plaintiff replied. (Dkt. No. 274, 21 275.) 22 The Court’s prior order granted SDCCU’s motion for summary judgment declaring 23 that SDCCU’s use of the SDCCU Mark does not infringe the CEFCU Registered Mark 24 and that SDCCU’s use of the SDCCU Mark does not infringe CEFCU common law mark 25 for the CEFCU Tagline as unopposed. (Dkt. No. 259 at 21.) The Court, sua sponte, 26 dismissed the cancellation counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied 27 SDCCU’s motion for summary judgment as moot. (Id.) Because Dabuert motions filed 28 1 by both parties related to the cancellation counterclaims, the Court also denied CEFCU’s 2 motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Stephen M. Nowlis and SDCCU’s motion 3 to exclude expert testimony of Dr. On Amir as moot. (Id. at 22.) The remaining fourth 4 cause of action, not subject to summary judgment, which will be set for a bench trial 5 seeks “Declaratory Judgment for Invalidity of NOT A BANK. BETTER.” (Dkt. No. 139, 6 SAC ¶¶ 98-104.) 7 The district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion in limine. United 8 States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (motion in limine rulings are 9 reviewed for abuse of discretion). In the broad sense, a motion in limine is a motion 10 “whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before 11 the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). 12 “Because the ‘first purpose of a motion in limine’ is ‘protecting the jury’ from potentially 13 inadmissible evidence, motions in limine are generally ‘inapplicable in the context of a 14 bench trial.’” Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Godaddy.com, Inc., Case 15 No.: CV 10-03738-AB (CWx), 2015 WL 12697750, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) 16 (quoting Crane-Mcnab v. County of Merced, No. CIV 1:08-1218 WBS SMS, 2011 WL 17 94424 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011)). This reasoning applies equally to expert opinions 18 which “the court may admit . . . ‘subject to the ability later to exclude it or disregard it if 19 it turns out not to meet the standard of reliability established by Rule 702.’” Id. (quoting 20 Wolkowitz v. Lerner, No. SA CV 07-777-CAS, 2008 WL 1885770, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21 21, 2008)). 22 Because the case will be tried before the Court, it concludes it would be 23 superfluous to rule on a motion to exclude prior to the bench trial. See Godaddy.com, 24 Inc., 2015 WL 12697750, at *2 (“in the case of a bench trial, a threshold ruling [on 25 admissibility before trial] is generally superfluous.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || SDCCU’s ex parte request. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ||Dated: January 6, 2021 2 sf 4 Hon. athe Ck 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- United States v. Alfonso Torres 13-50553 · 2015-07-22