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

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 ) Case No. CV 04-0161 PHX ROS ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ) DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS, ) LIMINE RE REFERENCE TO LLC, ) VIOLATIONS OF 16 C.F.R. §§ 700.5 Defendant. ) AND 702.3 ) ) (Assigned to Honorable Roslyn O. Silver) ) ) I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUIRING PRIVITY BETWEEN THE PARTIES MUST FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW. First, it is undisputed that Neevada Law governs and that under Nevada law there is no requirement that Plaintiff be in privity with Defendants. However, at trial

20 21 22 23

Defendants now attempt to shift the burden and place blame on the authorized selling and repairing dealerships as Defendants have claimed that they did not sell the Motor Home to Plaintiffs nor did they repair the Motor Home. This defense will only confuse the

24 25 26 27 28

issues and confuse a jury. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §2307 if a warrantor designates a representative to perform duties under the written warranty the warrantor shall not be relieved of his direct responsibilities to the consumer under said warranty. 15 U.S.C. §2307. Second, Defendants have a contractual relationship advising its dealers to show

1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 219

Filed 09/19/2006

Page 1 of 3

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

consumers' defendant's warranty but requiring its authorized dealers to obtain consumers signatures indicating the consumer was provided Defendants' warranties and requiring defendant's dealers to perform warranty repairs on those defendant-warranted consumer products. Defendants should not be allowed to confuse a jury and claim that they did not do the repairs and/or did not affirmatively participate in the sale (at least with respect to the warranty) of the Motor Home. Defendants are not allowed to escape liability by blaming authorized dealers. This will only cause confusion. For these reasons, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court deny Workhorse's Motion in Limine on this issue.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 19th day of September, 2006.

By: _s/Jennifer Basola_____ Jennifer Basola KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 111 West Monroe, 711 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Filed on this 19th day of September, 2006, with:

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

United States District Court CM/ECF system Copy sent via US mail on this 19th day of September, 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 19th day of September, 2006 to: Mr. Negatu Molla Attorney Bowman and Brooke, L.L.P. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600

2

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 219

Filed 09/19/2006

Page 2 of 3

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

Phoenix AZ 85012-2761 __s/Cathy Bopp_______ Cathy Bopp

3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 219

Filed 09/19/2006

Page 3 of 3