Geffcken

Geffcken v. D'ANDREA

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 1298·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2006B176232California4,708 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vegan, J.

Eva Geffcken (Eva) and Alexander M. Geffcken (Alexander) appeal from the judgments entered against them and in favor of respondents. Appellants claim that they were exposed to mold mycotoxins at their residence. Eva also claims that she was exposed to mold mycotoxins at her place of work. Appellants maintain that the exposure caused them to suffer from various ailments. Respondents allegedly were responsible for the management, maintenance, or construction of the properties.

Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously granted respondents’ motions in limine (1) to exclude the testimony of one of appellants’ two designated experts: Dr. Gary Ordog; (2) to exclude the environmental sampling data of appellants’ other designated expert: Patrick Moffett, (3) to exclude the results of two medical tests: a mycotoxin antibody test and a blood serology test, and (4) to preclude them from alleging exposure to mycotoxins at the properties in question. Appellants also contend that, even if the trial court did not err in granting the motions in limine, it still erred in dismissing their causes of action for nuisance and constructive eviction. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.