I’ve told you about one or two of my lingusitic peeves before. In Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., case no. H030386 (6th Dist. Jan. 17, 2008), the Court of Appeal takes on one of my peeves about procedure, and I’m glad to see it. Just prior to trial, the defendant moved in limine to exclude all evidence on one of plaintiff’s claims (the “section 11 claim”) on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion. After a jury trial and judgment for defendant on the remaining claims, plaintiff argued on appeal that “the trial court’s use of an in limine…
-
-
Nonsuit after Opening Statement in Bench Trial
Lingenfelter v. County of Fresno, case no. F005021 (5th Dist. August 16, 2007) unknots a sticky procedural question: In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that a motion for nonsuit, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581c, subdivision (a), does lie in a trial by the court. We publish on this issue because the disagreement of our concurring colleague demonstrates that there is a conflict of authority. More specifically, the court holds that nonsuit is available in a bench trial immediately after the close of plaintiff’s opening statement. The court’s exercise in statutory interpretation of Section 581c is detailed. It examines not only Section 581c, but also…