THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

23CV044940: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. 06/10/2026 Case Management Conference in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 06/09/2026 Patrick McKinney

The parties are to appear to discuss status of the issues in the Case Management Statements. Counsel are directed to meet-and-confer regarding the tentative ruling below on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 and may request argument at the hearing:

Plaintiff The People of the State of California’s (“The People”) Motion in Limine (“MIL”) No. 2 “To Exclude Defendants’ Evidence of Selective Prosecution” is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The People move to exclude 13 exhibits because Defendants Heartbeat International, Inc. and RealOptions, Inc. (“Defendants”) relied on them to oppose the People’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) as to the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defenses (“AD”). (MIL at 8-9.) The People argue that, because the AD at-issue in the granted MSA rested on a theory of “selective prosecution that targets pro-life speech,” Defendants may not rely on the same exhibits to support their Twenty-First through Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses asserting Free Exercise and Free Speech. The People further argue that Defendants failed to adequately plead the Twenty-First through Twenty-Fourth AD.

Defendants in opposition argue that the MIL is an improper motion to summarily adjudicate the Free Exercise and Free Speech AD. Defendants identify 9 additional exhibits relevant to the issues that were not initially included on the parties’ Exhibit List. (Jonna Decl. ¶ 4 § III.) On the merits, Defendants primarily argue that evidence of The People’s purportedly improper motive, including the 22 identified exhibits, remains relevant to their First Amendment defenses. (Opp’n at 5-11.)

The court agrees with Defendants that this MIL is an improper attempt to obtain summary adjudication as to the Twenty-First through Twenty-Fourth AD. (See Johnson v. Chiu (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 775, 780-81.) Although styled as a motion to exclude particular documents, this MIL seeks to have the court determine the sufficiency of Defendants’ AD, or adjudicate disputed issues of fact in The People’s favor. The People could have but did not move for summary adjudication as to the Twenty-First through Twenty-Fourth AD, and the court will not decide the issue on this MIL.

This ruling is without prejudice to The People objecting to admission of the subject exhibits during trial; or, if supported, to move for a directed verdict.