California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Nos. 37-2010-0008326-CU-PO-NC Robert P. Dahlquist, Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Richard L. Duquette and Richard James Schnieders for Plaintiff and Appellant.
G & P Schick, Malcolm M. Schick and Danielle C. Loss for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Shelley Brown was injured in a bicycle accident involving her riding partner, Ronald Voigt. Voigt was riding in front of Brown when the front fork on Voigt's bicycle failed. Voigt fell, and caused Brown, who was unable to avoid Voigt, to crash as well. Brown sued the designer and distributor of the bicycle fork, American Bicycle Group, LLC (ABG), among others. A jury returned a verdict in favor of ABG. The trial court denied Brown's motion for new trial, and Brown filed this appeal.
In the published portions of this opinion, we consider Brown's contentions that the trial judge erred in failing to disclose his "significant financial ties with the insurance industry, " and that her due process right to an impartial judge was violated. We conclude that the trial judge was not required to disclose his ownership interests in various insurance related companies, since none of those companies was a party to this case or a carrier of ABG's. We further conclude that there was no violation of Brown's due process right to an impartial judge.
In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we consider Brown's contention that the trial court committed reversible error in denying three of her in limine motions to exclude various items of evidence at trial. We conclude that
Brown's motions in limine were not sufficient to preserve her evidentiary objections, and that Brown has not demonstrated that she was prejudiced by the trial court's rulings. We also conclude that Brown's claims as to two of the three in limine motions fail because the record on appeal does not establish that any of the evidence at issue in the in limine motions was offered at trial. As to the third in limine motion, we reject Brown's claim on the merits and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
In another unpublished portion of this opinion, we consider Brown's contention that the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial. However, Brown does not present any argument for reversing the trial court's order denying the motion, apart from attempting to improperly incorporate her trial court pleadings into her briefing on appeal. Since it is well established both that documents filed in the trial court may not be incorporated by reference into an appellate brief, and that this court need not consider such improperly incorporated arguments, we deem this contention forfeited.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and the trial court's order denying Brown's motion for new trial.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Brown suffered multiple injuries in the bicycle accident described in part I., ante.
In December 2011, Brown filed a first amended complaint against ABG, among others. Brown alleged that the front fork on Voigt's bicycle was defective and that ABG had designed and distributed the fork. Brown brought claims against ABG for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
Prior to the trial, Brown filed in limine motions to exclude evidence pertaining to Voigt's alleged negligent maintenance of the bicycle, the lack of similar accidents involving the bicycle fork, and expert testimony to the effect that a foreign object may have ...