HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al.

22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/21/2026 Mark Fickes

Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A motion in limine is meant to resolve the admissibility of specific, identified evidence, not to bar an entire category of material defined only by the lawsuit it came from. Defendants may object to particular items of evidence when and if those items are offered at trial.

Background

Respondent/Plaintiff Servano Huitzil Quijada ("Plaintiff") brought a wage claim before the Labor Commissioner, contending that Appellants/Defendants Gogris Corporation and related entities, together with Mahesh Gogri and Shilpa Gogri (collectively, "Defendants"), misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an employee during his work from May 31, 2015 through April 6, 2017. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 2.) On April 21, 2022, the Labor Commissioner issued an Order, Decision, or Award finding that Plaintiff was an employee, and Defendants appealed to this Court under Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (a). (Ibid.) The appeal is a trial de novo, set for a bench trial beginning August 24, 2026. (Ibid.)

Mahesh and Shilpa Gogri were married and jointly owned the corporate Defendants throughout the period of Plaintiff's alleged employment. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 2.) After April 2017, and after Plaintiff's work had ended, the Gogris divorced, and litigation followed arising from the dissolution of their marriage and their business relationship. (Ibid.)

The motion was prompted by a demand from Plaintiff's counsel for documents relating to any lawsuits in which Mahesh and Shilpa Gogri are adverse to each other, other than family law matters, from January 1, 2020 to the present. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 2.) Defendants read that demand as signaling an intent to use the Gogris' inter-party litigation at trial, and they now move to preclude "any documentary evidence, testimony, or other reference to other litigation among Appellants/Defendants, and between Mahesh and Shilpa Gogri in particular." (Ibid.)

Plaintiff opposes. He does not seek to try the Gogris' divorce or to use collateral accusations solely to attack character, but he argues that the motion is overbroad because the source of a statement does not determine its admissibility. (Pl.'s Opp.) He contends that statements made in the other litigation may bear on disputed facts such as ownership, operational control, payroll practices, and the relationship among the entities, and may be admissible as party admissions, as prior inconsistent statements, or for impeachment. (Ibid.)

In the alternative, Plaintiff asks for a narrow order barring only unrelated marital or collateral accusations offered solely for an improper character purpose. (Ibid.) In reply, Defendants did not fully withdraw the motion. They suggested the Court could address the issue as it arises at trial, while maintaining that the other litigation is irrelevant and excludable under Evidence Code section 352. (Defs.' Reply.)

Legal Standard 22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518

A motion in limine is directed toward specific evidence, not toward causes of action or issues in the abstract. (Dong v. Board of Trustees (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1572, 1584.) Its usual purpose is to preclude the presentation of particular evidence that the moving party contends is inadmissible and prejudicial. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 669-670, quoting People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 188.) Often the court cannot rule on admissibility until the evidence is offered, because relevance, probative value, and the potential for prejudice depend on the context in which the evidence arrives. (Id. at p. 670.)

Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid. Code, § 350.) Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Evid. Code, § 210.) All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided. (Evid. Code, § 351.)

Evidence of a person's character is inadmissible when offered to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a given occasion, but it is not inadmissible when offered to prove some other fact, and the bar does not reach evidence offered to attack or support a witness's credibility. (Evid. Code, § 1101.) The Court may exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will consume undue time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Evid. Code, § 352.)

A party's own statement offered against that party is not barred by the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1220.) The trier of fact may consider any matter bearing on a witness's credibility, including bias, interest, motive, and prior inconsistent statements. (Evid. Code, § 780.) A prior inconsistent statement may be admitted, subject to the required foundation. (Evid. Code, § 1235.)

Discussion

The motion asks the Court to do something in advance that the governing rules call for in context. It seeks a single order barring every document, statement, and reference drawn from the Gogris' other litigation, sight unseen. The question is whether that categorical relief is proper at this stage. It is not.

The Motion Does Not Target Specific Evidence

A motion in limine is a tool for ruling on specific, identified evidence. (Dong, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at p. 1584; Kelly, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 669-670.) Defendants' motion does not identify a particular pleading, declaration, deposition answer, or admission. It defines the evidence to be excluded solely by its source, the other litigation, and asks the Court to bar all of it at once. That is not a task the Court can perform in the abstract. Relevance and the balancing required by Evidence Code section 352 both depend on what a given item says, the issue to which it relates, and the purpose for which it is offered. Until the evidence is offered in context, the Court often cannot intelligently rule on its admissibility. (Kelly, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518 670.) Defendants themselves recognize as much: their reply suggests the Court may prefer to address these issues as they arise at trial. (Defs.' Reply.)

The Parties' Legal Contentions

The motion's substantive premises do not change the result. Defendants first argue that the other litigation is irrelevant because it post-dates Plaintiff's employment. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 2.) Timing may well reduce the relevance of some later events. But a statement made after April 2017 can still describe an earlier fact, such as who owned the entities, who controlled payroll, or who exercised operational authority while Plaintiff worked. Those facts bear on employer status and control, which are central to the classification question. Relevance turns on the content and purpose of a statement, not on the case in which it was made. (Evid. Code, §§ 350, 210.)

Defendants next invoke the bar on character evidence. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 2.) They are correct, and Plaintiff agrees, that evidence offered solely to show that a Defendant has a bad character, and acted in conformity with it, is inadmissible. (Evid. Code, § 1101; Pl.'s Opp.) But section 1101 does not convert every statement made in another lawsuit into propensity evidence. The same statute preserves evidence offered to prove some other fact and evidence offered to attack or support credibility. (Evid. Code, § 1101.) A statement offered as a party admission, as a prior inconsistent statement, or to establish bias, ownership, control, or employer status is analytically different from evidence offered to prove bad character. (Evid. Code, §§ 1220, 780, 1235.) Whether any particular statement qualifies will depend on the trial testimony and the required foundation.

Defendants last argue that admitting this material would cause undue prejudice, confuse the issues, and produce a trial within a trial. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 2.) That concern is legitimate as to particular collateral accusations, and it may justify excluding specific items when they are offered. It does not justify excluding, in advance, every statement and document from the other litigation. Section 352 requires the Court to weigh the probative value of identified evidence against identified dangers, an inquiry that cannot be performed where the moving party has not identified the evidence, the issue, or the purpose. (Evid. Code, § 352.) The concern is further reduced here because the matter will be tried to the Court rather than a jury, and the Court can weigh each item as it is offered.

Denial Is Without Prejudice

Because the motion is categorical rather than directed at identified evidence, the proper course is to deny it without prejudice. That disposition preserves Defendants' objections. When Plaintiff offers a specific item drawn from the other litigation, Defendants may object on any proper ground, and the Court will rule in context. Nothing in this order permits Plaintiff to use that material solely to disparage the Gogris' character.

ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as follows:

1. The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks a categorical, advance exclusion of all evidence of, testimony about, or reference to other litigation between the Appellants/Defendants. A motion in limine is directed at specific, identified evidence, and the admissibility of the material at issue cannot be determined in the abstract.

2. The denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to specific evidentiary objections. When a particular item of evidence drawn from the other litigation is offered at trial, Defendants may object on any proper ground, including relevance, Evidence Code section 352, and the bar on character evidence, and the Court will rule on that objection in context.

3. Nothing in this order authorizes the use of evidence from the other litigation solely to prove that a Defendant has a bad character or acted in conformity with it. Such propensity use remains improper under Evidence Code section 1101.