Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,053 chars

We next consider Aljabban’s contention that the trial court improperly
admitted evidence that FISM incurred expenses to repair damage to space
H-2 because that evidence was contradicted by discovery responses served by
FISM and Shapiro.
      As background to this issue, plaintiffs filed a motion in limine for an
order “to bar Defendants from introducing any evidence at trial of any
damage, loss or repair to FISM Inc. premises regarding Space H2.”
(Emphasis omitted.) Plaintiffs’ motion in limine relied on case law holding
that the function of a discovery response is to “immediately and conclusively
bind[] the answering party to the facts set forth in his reply.” (Coy v.
Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 219.)
Plaintiffs contended that “Defendants were repeatedly asked during
discovery whether Plaintiffs[] in any way harmed the premises and they
categorically stated under oath in multiple places that: ‘Defendant is not
making any claim for any loss or damages in connection with this matter.’ ”
(Emphasis omitted.)

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text