Doe v. Braslaw CA1/5
Steven Braslaw appeals from a judgment entered after the court ordered summary adjudication of his liability for raping respondent Jane Doe and a jury determined her damages. He contends: the court erred in granting Doe’s summary adjudication motion because his criminal conviction for raping Doe did not preclude him from introducing evidence that he was not civilly liable; he demonstrated a triable issue of fact; summary adjudication cannot be obtained for liability only; and the order prejudiced his right to a fair trial. He further asserts that the court’s grant of Doe’s motions in limine prejudiced his ability to represent himself at the damages trial. We will affirm the judgment.
Comments on Doe v. Braslaw CA1/5