Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05031/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05031-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MACARIA PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN MCNAMEE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5031 BZ

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

The final pretrial conference in this case was held on

Tuesday, December 18, 2007. Plaintiffs were represented by

John E. Hill and Daniel A. Stenson. Defendant John McNamee

was represented by James Mills. Defendant Morbark was

represented by Kevin G. Dougherty and John P. Walovich. 

Defendants Nancy Puzziferri and Edwin Dissosway were

represented by Lawrence A. Baker. 

This order follows the final pretrial conference. It

shall control the subsequent conduct of the case and be

modified only prevent manifest injustice. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(e).

///

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 156 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 If Puzziferri and Dissosway wish to file a more

detailed application for a determination of good faith

settlement, they should also do so by 5 p.m. on December 19,

2007. 

2

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT

The parties’ joint pretrial conference statement, except

as modified during the final pretrial conference and in this

order, is hereby adopted.

SETTLEMENT AS TO McNAMEE, PUZZIFERRI AND DISSOSWAY

On December 14, 2007, defendants Puzziferri and Dissosway

filed an application for good faith determination of

settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

section 877.6. The settlement is contingent on plaintiffs

obtaining approval of a minors’ compromise and a release by

defendant McNamee of his cross-claims.

At the pretrial conference, McNamee stated that he had

also settled plaintiffs’ claims contingent on approval of the

minors’ compromise and will seek a good faith determination.

As discussed at the conference, I will attempt to resolve

these issues prior to trial. Plaintiffs are to file and serve

their petition for minors’ compromise and McNamee shall file

his application for a determination of good faith settlement

by 5 p.m. on December 19, 2007.1 Should any party oppose the

petition or applications, that party shall file a notice of

intent to oppose by no later than noon on December 20, 2007

and I will issue a briefing schedule. 

Based on the parties statements at the pretrial

conference, there will not likely be any opposition to the

petition or applications. As such, it appears that the

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 156 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

petition and applications will be granted, assuming they are

legally sufficient, and McNamee, Puzziferri and Dissosway will

be dismissed from the action prior to trial. Accordingly,

this order will not address those defendants. 

LENGTH AND TIME OF TRIAL

 Trial shall begin on Monday, January 7, 2008, at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties are to

meet in my chambers at 8:15 a.m. the morning of trial. The

trial schedule is as follows: 8:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. The

parties shall make their best efforts to conclude the trial

within five (5) days. Plaintiffs shall be prepared to call

their first witness Monday, January 7, 2008. All parties

shall schedule witnesses to avoid any interruption in the

presentation of testimony. During the trial, witnesses, other

than counsel and their clients, shall remain sequestered

outside the courtroom until they are called to testify.

The parties are reminded that no exhibits will be

provided to the jury during deliberations unless they are

properly put before the jury during trial.

VOIR DIRE 

I have reviewed the suggested voir dire questions and

provided the parties at the conference with the questions I

intend to put to prospective jurors during voir dire. Should

any party wish to propose further questions or object to any

of the questions I provided at the conference, they should

file proposed voir dire questions or specific objections by no

later than Friday, December 21, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 156 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES

Should the parties determine they would like any

stipulations read to the jury before opening statements, the

parties should meet and confer and prepare appropriate

stipulations, keeping in mind the likely settlement of

McNamee, Puzziferri and Dissosway and file those stipulations

by no later than Friday, December 21, 2007. 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

For the reasons articulated on the record at the pretrial

conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude references to

settlement negotiations is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude any

reference to Garcia’s immigration status and defendant

Morbark’s related motion to bar any evidence to Garcia’s

earning capacity or future earnings in the United States are

GRANTED. 

Ordinarily, evidence of the decedent’s immigration status

would not be relevant in a wrongful death suit by his family. 

See Hernandez v. Paicius, 109 Cal. App. 4th 452, 460 (2003). 

However, where economic damages based on his earning capacity

are sought, Rodriguez v. Kline, 186 Cal. App. 3d 1145, 1148

(1986) applies. In this case, defendant has proffered

evidence of Garcia’s illegal status and plaintiffs have not

disputed it. Accordingly, under Rodriguez if plaintiffs wish

to recover economic damages which relate to the loss of the 

financial support they had received from Garcia, such damages

are limited to what his earnings would have been in Guatemala. 

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 156 Filed 12/21/07 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

If they so limit their damages, and do not open the door by

testifying about losses tied to his past financial support,

defendant is precluded from mentioning Garcia’s immigration

status.

The cases upon which the plaintiffs rely for the

proposition that they can recover the loss of Garcia’s earning

capacity as a measure of general damages without requiring

proof of his actual earnings are readily distinguishable. 

Generally, plaintiffs rely on dicta made before Proposition 51

was passed when the distinction between economic and noneconomic damages was not as clear or on cases in which the

facts do not support the dicta. 

3. Morbark moved to exclude certain photographs

depicting the accident scene. Plaintiffs only the opposed the

motion as to five (5) of the photographs at issue. The

parties are to meet and confer regarding these photographs. 

If they are unable to agree, I will rule on each photograph on

the first day of trial. 

4. Morbark’s motion in limine to exclude any

reference to liability insurance is GRANTED. 

 5. Morbark’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony

of plaintiffs’ experts Glen Stevick and Lisa Thomas, is DENIED

IN PART. The only outstanding issues before me is whether: 1)

whether Stevick is qualified to provide testimony as regarding

the need or sufficiency of warnings; and 2) whether I should

bar Stevick from testifying regarding his opinions on the

placement of the emergency shutdowns since such an opinion was

not included in his Rule 26 report. 

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 156 Filed 12/21/07 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

With regards to the warning issue, if plaintiffs believe

that Stevick’s deposition contains testimony to support his

qualifications to provide expert testimony on the issue,

plaintiffs shall submit a copy of his complete deposition with

reference to the applicable testimony by no later than

Thursday, December 20, 2007 at noon. Otherwise, a Daubert

hearing will be necessary on the issue. I will notify the

parties as to when the hearing will take place. Similarly,

should plaintiff wish to provide authority as to why Stevick’s

opinions that were not included in his Rule 26 report should

be admitted, they shall do so by no later than Thursday,

December 20, 2007 at noon. A final ruling will follow.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Rulings were made on the parties’ proposed instructions. 

I provided the parties with draft jury instructions. I will

post a second draft of jury instructions, after I rule on the

settlements of McNamee, Puzziferri and Dissosway’s shortly. 

The parties shall submit a more succinct Ninth Circuit

Model Instruction 1.2, shall address the Guatemalan life

expectancy issue and shall file any objections to the court’s

proposed instructions, together with proposed revised

instruction, by no later than Friday, December 21, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21,2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\PEREZ\Trial\FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER.2.BZ VERSION.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 156 Filed 12/21/07 Page 6 of 6