Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Traffic Citation and Conviction
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF TRAFFIC CITATION AND TRAFFIC CONVICTION
Plaintiff’s Response and Objections to Notice to Take the Videotaped Deposition of and Subpoena Duces Tecum
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE TO TAKE THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION aND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Company Motion for More Definite Statement
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT COMPANY MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to a Stay of Litigation
Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to a stay of litigation, submit this brief in opposition to a stay proceedings.
Plaintiffs’ Brief on the Issue of Bifurcation
Plaintiff provides the instant brief on the issue of whether bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of the trial of this action is necessary. Bifurcation is a judge’s ability in law to divide a trial into two parts so as to render a judgment on a set of legal issues without looking at all aspects. In a bifurcated case, the issues of liability and damages are decided separately. The trier of fact will only decide the issue of liability at the first trial. If the defendant is not found to be liable, then there will be no damages trial.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Admit into Evidence a Copy of the Notebook Written, Kept and Maintained by Shooter
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A COPY OF THE NOTEBOOK WRITTEN, KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY SHOOTER
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant from Referencing Other Specific Mass Casualty Events
Plaintiff’s motion for Defendants, their counsel and their witnesses from making or espousing statements, opinions or arguments at trial concerning, pertaining to or relating to specific other mass casualty events
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Referencing Legally Incorrect Standard of Foreseeability Under Colorado’s Premises Liability Statue
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM REFERENCING LEGALLY INCORRECT STANDARD OF FORESEEABILITY UNDER COLORADO’S PREMISES LIABILITY STATUTE
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Referencing Movie Theater Industry Security Standard, Protocols or Practices
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM REFERENCING MOVIE THEATER INDUSTRY SECURITY STANDARDS, PROTOCOLS OR PRACTICES
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants From Referencing the Biographical Backgrounds of Counsel
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM REFERENCING THE BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUNDS OF COUNSEL
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Designated Experts Pursuant to C.R.E. 702
Defendant’s motion for an Order excluding at the trial of this matter the testimony of four purported experts proffered by Defendants
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Coordinate Depositions
Defendant’s motion to have Plaintiffs action to coordinate the depositions of defendant’s employees with separate federal court cases all to the prejudice of plaintiffs herein.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Defendants
Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss by the Retail Property Trust and Simon Entities
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint by the Retail Property Trust and Simon entities.
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Expert Disclosures Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) and Response to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Experts Under Colo. R. Evid. 702
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF EXPERT DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS UNDER COLO. R. EVID. 702