Sacramento Bus Accident Victim Fights Immigration Issues, Part 1 of 2

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this bus accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine for Order Precluding Reference to Plaintiff’s Residency or Immigration Status

Plaintiff MOLLY CHANCE hereby moves this Court for an order excluding any and all evidence, references to evidence, testimony or argument relating to plaintiffs immigration and/or residence status.

This motion is made under the provisions of Evidence Code Sections 352 and 350, and is based on the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such of the argument and evidence as may be presented prior to or at the hearing of this matter.

Preliminary Statement

This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile versus pedestrian accident that occurred on October 27, 2006, where the plaintiff incurred a fractured jaw, brain hemorrhaging, dental damage and cognitive deficit and loss of earning capacity. This motion seeks to preclude the defendant from attempting to present prejudicial and irrelevant evidence relating to the plaintiffs immigration or residency status at the time of trial.

Plaintiff’s Immigration Status Is Not Relevant to Any Material Issue in this Case

Evidence Code Section 350 states that (n)o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. Relevant evidence is defined by Evidence Code Section 210 as having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523 (only relevant evidence is admissible).

Evidence may be properly excluded where not relevant to matters at issue. See Castaline v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 580, 592 (exclusion of expert testimony as irrelevant where prior discovery responses and actions of co insel led counsel to believe certain issues would not be litigated); See also, People v. Coleman (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 312, 321 (evidence on undisputed issue is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible). (See Part 2 of 2.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information