Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00441/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00441-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

13-cv-00441-NC

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR 

JARAMILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.13-cv-00441-NC 

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The Court recently ruled on Jaramillo’s and defendants’ in limine motions. Dkt. 

No. 107. In that order, the Court stated it would provide further explanation as to (1) 

Jaramillo’s in limine motion concerning defense expert’s testimony, and (2) defendant’s in 

limine motion concerning issues decided at summary judgment. 

I. JARAMILLO’S IN LIMINE MOTION

A. Motion in limine No. 1: To exclude defense expert’s testimony and report

GRANTED IN PART. While a police practices expert may testify as to standard 

police procedures and training, the expert may not offer an opinion as to what conclusions 

the jury should reach. See Jones v. Devaney, 107 Fed. Appx. 709, 711 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(finding that the “district court properly confined the testimony of plaintiffs’ police 

practices expert to admissible evidence and to issues of fact”) (citing Mukhtar v. Cal. State 

Univ., 299 F.3d 1053, 1066 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (“expert testimony concerning an ultimate 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 110 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 6
13-cv-00441-NC 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

issue is not per se improper,” but “an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal 

conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law”)); see also Hangarter v. Provident 

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[I]nstructing the jury as to 

the applicable law is the distinct and exclusive province of the court.”) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

In particular, “[i]n excessive force cases, an expert may not opine on whether the 

‘Defendants’ use of force was reasonable under the circumstances’ as this ‘is just such an 

opinion on an ultimate issue of law that risks usurping the jury’s province.’” Minter v. 

Galios, No. 12-cv-02905 JSC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36954, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 

17, 2014) (quoting Martinez v. Davis, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15406, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 

4, 2011)).

Here, defendants wish to have expert Jeffrey Martin testify, in part, that “the 

Officers acted reasonably and pursuant to training in the use of force to control and 

apprehend Plaintiff,” and that “the knee strike [to Jaramillo] was a reasonable application 

of force in this case.” Dkt. No. 104 at 2 (Joint Expert Witness List). As an expert on 

police practices, Martin can testify as to the standard police practices and training that 

govern City of San Mateo officers. But Martin cannot testify whether Officers Von Glahn, 

Leishman, and Montojo used reasonable force against Jaramillo. See Jimenez v. 

Sambrano, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67060, at *8-9 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2009) (stating that 

“[w]hether Defendants’ use of force was unreasonable or excessive is an ultimate issue of 

law in this case” and therefore the expert’s “opinions in this regard are inadmissible”).

Below are examples from Martin’s expert report of proper and improper expert 

testimony: 

Section Section or Excerpt Proper/Improper

3.A “[Officers Von Glahn, Leishman, and Montojo] acted 

upon the totality of the facts known to them at the time, 

and acted reasonably in responding with force to overcome 

Mr. Jaramillo’s attempted flight and physically active 

resistance to their lawful detention.” 

Improper

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 110 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 6
13-cv-00441-NC 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

3.C “Officer Von Glahn’s, Leishman’s and Montojo’s 

detention of Mr. Jaramillo was consistent with their 

training as California peace officers . . .”

Proper

3.C “. . . and [the officers] reasonably believed Mr. Jaramillo 

had committed a violation of the California Vehicle 

Code.”

Improper

3.D “Officer Von Glahn’s, Leishman’s and Montojo’s attempts 

to detain Mr. Jaramillo were consistent with their training 

as California peace officers . . .”

Proper

3.D “ . . . and [the officers] reasonably believed they had 

reasonable suspicion to [detain Mr. Jaramillo].”

Improper

3.E “Officer Von Glahn’s, Montojo’s and Leishman’s attempts 

to place Mr. Jaramillo under arrest were consistent with 

their training as California peace officers.

Proper

3.F “The officers were legally authorized to respond with force 

against Mr. Jaramillo in order to overcome his resistance 

to their lawful detention and to control Mr. Jaramillo’s 

concealed left hand as it posed a serious threat to the 

officers’ safety.” 

Improper

3.F “California peace officers are trained to watch the hands of 

subjects with whom they are interacting, as it is the hands 

that can hold weapons with which officers may be 

assaulted.” 

Proper

3.F “Officer Von Glahn, Leishman and Montojo certainly 

could not take the gamble that Mr. Jaramillo was not 

bringing a gun or edged weapon out of the pocket with his 

left hand, because if Mr. Jaramillo were doing so, Officer 

Von Glahn, Leishman, and Montojo would have probably 

been attacked before Officers Von Glahn, Leishman, and 

Montojo could have taken action to successfully defend 

themselves or each other.” 

Improper

3.G “The officers provided proper care for Mr. Jaramillo after 

the arrest by asking if he was injured and offering medical 

attention.”

Improper –

irrelevant, not an 

issue at trial

3.H “The officers’ actions were in full conformance with the 

polices of the San Mateo Police Department.”

Improper as 

irrelevant to the 

extent opinion is 

presented to 

defeat Jaramillo’s

Monell claim.

3.I “Peace officers may also use personal weapons to strike 

available targets during an arrest/detention to control a 

combative and/or resistive subject, especially during 

ground control encounters.” 

Proper

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 110 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 6
13-cv-00441-NC 4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

3.I “In the circumstances facing the officers and the difficulty 

both Officers Leishman and Montojo were having in 

removing Mr. Jaramillo’s left hand from the jacket pocket, 

the use of the single knee strike to the left side of Mr. 

Jaramillo’s torso was a reasonable application of force.” 

Improper

II. DEFENDANTS’ IN LIMINE MOTION

A. Motion in limine No. 1: To preclude Jaramillo from presenting on issues 

decided at summary judgment 

GRANTED IN PART. The following chart identifies whether Jaramillo’s causes 

of actions were decided at summary judgment.

Jaramillo’s Claim Resolved/Not Resolved at Summary 

Judgment

§ 1983 excessive force Not resolved

§ 1983 false imprisonment and false arrest Resolved in favor of defendants

§ 1983 claims based on other constitutional 

violations (e.g., Fourteenth Amendment)

Not resolved

§ 1983 claim against San Mateo (Monell) Resolved in favor of defendants

Assault and battery Not resolved

Intentional infliction of emotional distress Not resolved 

Negligence Not resolved

Breach of Duty Resolved in favor of defendants

False arrest and imprisonment Resolved in favor of defendants

California Civil Code § 52.1 Not resolved

California Civil Code § 51.7 Resolved in favor of defendants

Here, defendants seek to exclude evidence or argument concerning issues that were

resolved at summary judgment, as well as evidence or argument concerning issues that 

were not. The Court rules as follows:

Defendants Seek To: Ruling

(1) Exclude evidence that 

the officers lacked

probable cause to make 

contact with Jaramillo 

GRANTED with reservation. Jaramillo is not precluded 

from presenting evidence describing the circumstances that 

led up to the officers’ contact with Jaramillo. See Bryan v. 

MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 826 (9th Cir. 2010) (considering 

the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether 

officer used reasonable force)

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 110 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 6
13-cv-00441-NC 5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(2) Exclude evidence that 

the officers lacked

probable cause to arrest 

Jaramillo

GRANTED. See Dkt. No. 80 at 17-18 (“[B]ecause the Court 

concludes that there is no triable issue of fact over whether 

probable cause existed to arrest Jaramillo under § 148, 

summary judgment on the officers false arrest claim is 

GRANTED.”).

(3) Preclude plaintiff from 

presenting evidence 

over whether Jaramillo 

resisted arrest.

DENIED. The Court did not find that Jaramillo did in fact 

resist arrest; only that there was no triable issue over whether

the officers had probable cause to arrest Jaramillo. 

(4) Preclude plaintiff from 

presenting evidence 

over whether a 

reasonable person 

would have known 

Office Von Glahn was 

an actual police officer.

GRANTED with reservation. See Dkt. No. 80 at 17 (“Von 

Glahn’s actions of identifying herself as an officer, flashing 

her badge, and discussing traffic violations would lead a 

reasonable person to conclude that she indeed was a police 

officer.”). The Court applied an objective standard in its 

analysis of Jaramillo’s false arrest claim. But the Court’s 

ruling does not prevent Jaramillo from presenting evidence as 

to his own subjective thoughts over Von Glahn’s identity. 

(5) Exclude evidence that 

the City has a policy, 

custom or practice 

which caused the 

alleged injuries

GRANTED. The Court granted the City’s motion for 

summary judgment on Jaramillo’s Monell claim.

(6) Exclude evidence that 

the City failed to 

properly discipline its 

officers

GRANTED. The Court granted the City’s motion for 

summary judgment on Jaramillo’s Monell claim.

(7) Exclude evidence that

the City ratified the 

improper conduct of its 

officers

GRANTED. The Court granted the City’s motion for 

summary judgment on Jaramillo’s Monell claim.

(8) Exclude evidence that

the City failed to 

adequately train and/or 

supervise its officers

GRANTED. The Court granted the City’s motion for 

summary judgment on Jaramillo’s Monell claim.

(9) Exclude evidence that

the officers and/or the 

City breached a duty of 

care under state law

GRANTED as to the City and DENIED as to the officers. 

The Court granted defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment on Jaramillo’s breach of duty claim against the 

City, but denied defendants’ motion as to Jaramillo’s 

negligence claim against the officers. 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 110 Filed 01/26/15 Page 5 of 6
13-cv-00441-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(10) Exclude evidence 

that the officers’ 

conduct both before 

and after Jaramillo’s 

arrest was motivated in 

any way by Jaramillo’s 

race/national origin. 

DENIED. The Court granted defendants’ summary 

judgment motion as to Jaramillo’s claim under § 51.7. Dkt. 

No. 80 at 27 (finding Jaramillo failed to present evidence, 

aside from his subjective belief, that officers were “motivated 

by prejudice” because of Jaramillo’s race or national origin). 

But the Court’s ruling does not preclude Jaramillo from 

introducing evidence of racial animus that could go towards

supporting his other claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 ____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 110 Filed 01/26/15 Page 6 of 6