Sarjeant
Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES SARJEANT, et al., Case No. 24-cv-01216-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, et al., 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 Defendants.
Dkt. No. 314, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1 to exclude the complaint and answers is granted in part and denied in part. Section V. of the First Amended Complaint (“The Asbestos Exposures”) is admissible as a judicial admission and relevant to help the jury decide the extent of Kaiser Gypsum’s liability for Sarjeant’s non-economic damages. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1431.2. The rest of the complaint and the defendants’ answers are excluded under Rule 403 because they are marginally relevant (if at all) to determining Sarjeant’s other exposures to asbestos and would waste the jury’s time.
Dkt. No. 315, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #2 to exclude reference to Sarjeant’s talc pleurodesis procedure is granted. Reference to the procedures is prejudicial and would confuse the jury because it makes it seem like Sarjeant’s cancer is caused by the procedure, even though that is not why Kaiser Gypsum seeks to…