Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Jennifer Basola (#23158) KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 5055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90036 (323) 988-2400 (866) 385-5215 (facsimile) Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LANE SENNETT Plaintiff, vs. WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 04-0161 PHX ROS

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE RE WILLIAM TRIMMELL VALUATION TESTIMONY (Assigned to Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)

I.

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Robert Pizel v. Monaco Coach Corporation, 374 F.Supp.2d 653, the issue of William Trimmell's valuation opinion was decided by the United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. In that case, the Defendant Monaco Coach Corporation ("Monaco") filed a similar Motion in Limine attempting to bar the valuation

22 23 24 25

testimony of William Trimmell as it related to a recreational vehicle. Specifically, Monaco argued, much like Workhorse Custom Chassis ("Workhorse") argues in its Motion in Limine, that William Trimmell's opinions are speculative and unreliable and

26 27 28

will not aid the jury in awarding any damages for diminution in value. Specifically, Workhorse argues that Mr. Trimmell's methodology does not withstand the Daubert test.

1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 221

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

The Pizel court found that Monaco's attacks on Mr. Trimmell's foundation of his opinions was not sufficient to exclude Mr. Trimmell as an expert regarding valuation of Motor Homes. Therefore, Plaintiff asks this court to find that Mr. Trimmell is qualified as an expert to provide valuation opinions in this matter. II. WILLIAM TRIMMELL'S QUALIFICATIONS TO PROVIDE VALUATION TESTIMONY HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY OTHER DISTRICT COURTS, THERFORE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE IS NOT PROPER.

The Pizel court decision provides the framework for the proper analysis of Plaintiff's expert. The court begins by stating the applicable law. Id. at 655. The court states "Fed.R.Evid. 702 states as follows: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and

18 19 20 21

methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." Id. The Pizel court then went on the state "Fed.R.Evid. 702 has liberalized the standard for qualifying as an expert witness." Id. See Wilson v. City of Chicago 6 F.3d

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1233 (holding "It is enough, to be qualified as expert and thus entitled to give opinion testimony, that one has specialized knowledge that would assist trier of fact; no longer need expert belong to some recognized professional community). Therefore, the Pizel court determined that as a threshold matter, "court's must examine whether 1) the expert will testify to valid scientific knowledge, and 2) whether that testimony will assist the

2

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 221

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

trier of fact in understanding or determining a fact in issue. Citing Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579. Furthermore, an expert can qualify to testify based upon "personal experience and knowledge, so long as the experience and knowledge is reliable. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichiael 526 U.S. 137 at 150. Here, Mr. Trimmell's C.V. includes extensive experience in the RV industry, insurance

industry, and appraisal industry. See CV attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Furthermore, Defendant Workhorse does not question the professional qualifications of Mr. Trimmell. Workhorse merely attacks the foundation of Mr. Trimmell opinions. See Motion In Limine to Preclude Valuation Opinion of William Trimmell, generally. Specifically, Workhorse alleges that Mr. Trimmell's opinions are speculative and unreliable. However, the exact same analysis was performed by the Pizel court which found such argument insufficient. The Pizel court concluded Under the Daubert framework, Trimmell's valuation methodology is reliable because he consulted sources such as the NADA and RV Trader, which are both published and highly accepted valuation techniques in the motor home industry. Unlike the recent Seventh Circuit opinion of Zenith Electronics Corp v. WH-TV Broadcasting Corp., 395 F.3d 416 (7th Cir.2005), which Defendant cites, Trimmell's opinion was not purely based upon his expertise because he did not randomly assign a value to the motor home without first consulting respected publication. Defendant attempts to misconstrue the deposition testimony of Mr. Trimmell in its Motion in Limine. See Motion in Limine to Preclude Valuation Opinion of William Trimmell at pg. 3. Specifically, Defendant states "Mr. Trimmell also stated that $56,475.00 value of the motor home with its alleged defects was arrived at by guessing

3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 221

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

that the motor home would be worth about 75 percent of its wholesale value." Id. However, a brief glance at the deposition testimony of William Trimmell cited by Defendant show that he in fact stated "just to clear that up for you, right there is the page that I took the values out of." See Trimmell deposition 102:1-2. Furthermore, Trimmell indicated that he relied on values provided by the NADA guideline book. Id. at 101:2223. This was likewise an issue in the Pizel case when the court stated "because Trimmell made a valuation based upon his experience in the industry, and consulted various recognized and approved valuation guides, Trimmell should be allowed to testify on the issue of value because it would aid the jury in their determination of factual issues." Pizel 374 F.Supp.2d 653 at 657. III. CONCLUSION

The issue of William Trimmell's opinion on value has already been determined by the US District Court in the Pizel case. Therefore, Plaintiff urges this court to follow precedent and Deny in Full Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude Valuation Opinions of William Trimmell.

20 21

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 17th day of October, 2006.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

By: _s/Jennifer Basola_____ Jennifer Basola KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 111 West Monroe, 711 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Filed on this 17th day of October, 2006, with: United States District Court CM/ECF system

4

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 221

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Copy sent via US mail on this 17th day of October, 2006, to: Hon. Roslyn O. Silver United States District Court, District of Arizona Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 West Washington Street Phoenix AZ 85003 Copy sent via US mail this 17th day of October, 2006 to: Mr. Negatu Molla Attorney Bowman and Brooke, L.L.P. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600 Phoenix AZ 85012-2761 __s/Cathy Bopp_______ Cathy Bopp

5

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 221

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 5 of 5