While ruling, Polos made it clear that jurors will be asked to stick to contract language, not fan passion or county rivalry, to decide if Anaheim was hurt by the Angels’ name switch. That came after Angels attorney Todd Theodora expressed concern about “an undercurrent” notion that jurors may feel the need to decide the case out of civic pride or perceived rivalries between Orange and Los Angeles counties. Theodora cautioned that the case could come down to “a popularity contest (such as) if you don’t like the name, vote for the city” … or “if it’s a silly name, vote for the city.” Theodora held up a T-shirt with the message “We are Not L.A.,” as an example of how “passions, prejudice and bias” could sway the decision. “We’ll be talking about the (stadium) lease,” Theodora said. “Our defense will come from the lease terms.” Polos said neither side will “bring in fans to say whether they like (the name change) or not.” “We’re going to try the case on breach of contract: does (the name) Los Angeles deprive Anaheim of its bargain,” Polos said. Guilford said the city may want to address the issue of rivalry. “Never in a million years did Anaheim contemplate Los Angeles in (the team) name,” Guilford said. “Team names are all about community and that is why this name is absurd … We do need to talk about competition between two cities or two names. These two communities will not meld together as (Moreno) melded together the two names.” 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! Anaheim city officials, concerned the name change would rob the city of recognition and tourism dollars, responded with the lawsuit, arguing that the move violated the team’s 1996 stadium lease agreement and caused the city “incalculable” harm. Among the motions Polos denied was to preclude evidence that the city lost goodwill and income from the name change. The Angels also unsuccessfully sought to keep out some of the “hypothetical team names conjured up by Anaheim.” During pretrial hearings, plaintiff attorney Andrew Guilford jokingly asked if the stadium lease contract would allow such names as “the Angels, formerly of Anaheim” or “the Angels who hate Anaheim.” Some other motions rejected by Polos would exclude evidence that the name “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” disparages the city and that the city was acting on behalf of taxpayers by fighting to keep the Anaheim Angels name. Polos also ruled that both the evidence and damages will be decided in a single proceeding, instead of splitting them into essentially two trials, with juries deliberating both issues separately. The city sued the Angels after owner Arte Moreno announced on Jan. 3, 2005, that he was changing the team’s name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in an effort to draw more advertisers and fans by staking a claim to the nation’s second-largest media market. SANTA ANA – A judge refused today to restrict most of the evidence that lawyers want jurors to hear in deciding if the city of Anaheim was harmed by the Angels’ name change to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos ruled on nearly 40 motions designed to shape the evidence that will go to jurors during an estimated eight-week trial.