Helene V. Galen v. Avenue of the Stars Associates LLC et al
| Helene V. Galen |
| Avenue of the Stars Associates LLC and Does |
| 2:2009cv04738 |
| June 30, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Hillman |
| Lew |
| Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Interstate Commerce Act |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
78
ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: denying 41 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude at Trial testimony by Bill Pham, Corazon Canamaso, and Ethel Concepcion; granting 42 Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude the trial testimony of Robert Gilmore; denying 43 Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude the trial testimony of Bill Pham regarding his review of the documents provided to him by Plaintiff and his investigation as to whether Plaintiff was provided with the M arch Property Report before she signed the Purchase Agreement; granting 44 Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude evidence or argument that Defendant was required to have Plaintiff sign the Receipt for the March 28, 2008 Public Report b efore signing the Purchase Agreement; granting 46 Plaintiff Galen's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude Defendant from Presenting Any Evidence or Argument Relating to the "100 Lot Exemption"; granting 47 Plaintiff's Motion in L imine No. 2 to preclude Defendant from presenting any evidence or argument that it purportedly complied with the ILSA and CSLA by providing Plaintiff with the expired December 17, 2007 Property Report; granting in part and denying in part 48 Plaint iff's Motion in Limine No. 3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 with regard to any evidence or argument that Defendants violation of the ISLA and CSLA is excused because Plaintiff was not purportedly misled or defrauded. H owever, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 is DENIED with regard to evidence or argument that Plaintiffs purported motive or reason for seeking to rescind the Purchase Agreement is due to buyer's remorse or a change in market conditions; and denying 49 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4. the testimony of Erica Llanos. (lom)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 in its entirety. With regard to the Defendant, the Court DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 15 . The Court GRANTS Summary Judgment on the third cause of action for Rescission because Defendant meets the liquidated damages terms mandated under 15 U.S.C. § 1703(d)(3) by using the breach of contract language in Cal. Civ. Code § 1675. (lom)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
