Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Negatu Molla (Bar No. 006254)

David W. Williams (Bar No. 022764)

2 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Suite 1600, Phoenix Plaza
3 2901 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
4 (602) 643-2300

5

Attorneys for Defendant Workhorse Custom Chassis

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PHOENIX

8 9

LANE SENNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CV04 0161 PHX ROS
DEFENDANT WORKHORSE CUSTOM

10
11

12

FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS;
INC.,

13 14 15

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DEFENDANT WORKHORSE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM AT TRIAL THAT DEALER-INSTALLED ACCESSORIES ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE WORKHORSE WARRANTY
(Assigned to Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)

CHASSIS, LLC'S RESPONSE TO

16
17

18

Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC ("Workhorse") hereby responds to

19 Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude Workhorse from claiming that after-market

20 components are not covered by Workhorse's limited warranty. Workhorse's

21 position is more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum of points and
22 authority.
23

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

24 Plaintiff's motion in limine seeks a ruling from the Court that any after-market
25 component (not approved by Workhorse and not manufactured by Workhorse) is
26 magically covered under Workhorse's limited warranty. Plaintiff's motion is flawed
27

in that it fails to identify any specific after-market component that she intends to

?R claim is somehow covered under Workhorse's limited warranty. Instead, Plaintiff
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS
1 Document 217

::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 1 of 4

1

simply seeks a broad-brushed ruling from the Court that any part of the motor home

2 3

that is allegedly defective is somehow now covered under Workhorse's limited
warranty since Defendant Fleetwood has been dismissed from the case.

4
5

Workhorse has always contended that it is responsible only for those repairs that

are shown in its Warranty Claims history-which reflects payments made to
Workhorse authorized service facilities for work performed pursuant to the limited
warranty. See Warranty Claims History, attached as Exhibit A.

6
7

8 9

As support for her motion, Plaintiff cites to a section of the Workhorse Policy
and Procedures Manual as support for her argument that Workhorse always covers

10
11

after-market components under its limited warranty. However, the language
referred to in the Policy Manual notes "WCC accessories." Plaintiff has not
identified any Workhorse approved after-market components that it has indicated

12

13 14 15 16
17

are covered under the limited warranty. To be considered "WCC accessories," the

after-market components must be approved by Workhorse. In this case,
Workhorse has not given approval for any after-market component to used address
any repair situation.

Fairness dictates that Workhorse should not be responsible for another

18 19

manufacturer's part or components.

For instance, if Plaintiff were to claim the

generator on the subject motor home is defective, Workhorse would not be

20
21

responsible for that component. Workhorse did not manufacture the generator and
it did not authorize its installation on the motor home. These decisions would have
been made by another manufacturer.

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

Therefore, because Plaintiff has not identified any specific after-market

components in her motion and it is prejudicial and unfair for Workhorse to be
responsible for another manufacturer's defective component, Workhorse requests
that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion in limine.

::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

2 Document 217

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 2 of 4

1

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of September, 2006.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

2 3

4
5

By: Isl David W. Williams
Negatu Molla

David W. Williams
2901 North Central Avenue

6
7

Suite 1600, Phoenix Plaza

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
Attorneys for Defendant

8 9

10
11

12

13 14 15 16
17

18 19

20
21

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

3 Document 217

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 3 of 4

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 15th day of September, 2006 I caused the attached

2 3

document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk's Office using the CMIECF

4
5

System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following
CMIECF registrants:

6

Jennifer Basola

7 KROHN & MOSS, L TD

Phoenix, AZ 85003 9 Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11

8 111 W Monroe, Suite 711

12

sl Judy Kaelin

13 14 15 16
17

18 19

20
21

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

4 Document 217

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 4 of 4