Plaintiff Bank of America has brought this eviction action seeking to gain possession of the Defendants’ home following a purported foreclosure on the property. Bank of America will assert that it went through the proper foreclosure procedures to take back title to the property. Bank of America also seems to allege it served a three day notice to vacate on the Defendants, though its allegations in this regard are disputed, uncertain and contradicted by other evidence.

It is fundamental in the rules of evidence that a witness may only testify as to those matters to which that witness has personal knowledge. (California Evidence Code §702.) The newspapers are full of articles revealing how Bank of America, along with other major lending institutions, cut corners in their processing of foreclosures over the past two years. Banks are now cutting corners in their presentation of evidence to support their foreclosures and the eviction of the former homeowners and their tenants. Defendants have reason to believe that, in this case, Bank of America will try to cut corners by having Mr. Agent try to testify as to matters of which he has no personal knowledge and to which there is no evidentiary basis. Defendants seek an order in limine limiting Mr. Agent’s testimony, if not completely eliminating it. The only fact Mr. Agent raised in his declaration was regarding occupancy of the home, a fact which is not in dispute.

It is common practice in the courtroom, during trial, to remove other witnesses from the courtroom during the testimony of a witness. (California Evidence Code §777(a).) As REAL ESTATE AGENT is at best a mere percipient witness, he should be removed from the courtroom unless and until it is his turn to testify while other witnesses are testifying.

In the courtroom, there are tables for the parties and their respective counsel from which to present their case. Defendants request that only actual parties to the case be permitted to sit with counsel at the tables. Evidence Code §777(c) limits who can be in the courtroom for a non-natural person party to an officer or employee of the company. Defendants believe that it

has been the practice of banks at post-foreclosure eviction trials to have third party real estate agents sit at the counsel table to present the illusion that the bank is actually represented in court when they in fact are not. It is believed that Bank of America may try to have real estate agent REAL ESTATE AGENT sitting at the table with counsel. However, Mr. Agent is not an employee of Bank of America. In fact, according to his declaration, he is not even an agent of Bank of America, but was hired by Chase, the servicer of the loan. If Mr. Agent, or any other third party that is not an employee of Bank of America, is permitted to sit at counsel’s table, it will give the false and prejudicial impression that Bank of America has sent a representative to this trial.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully move for an order consistent with the motion herein.