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

10
11

12

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

13 14 15 16
17

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DEFENDANT WORKHORSE CANNOT CLAIM CHASSIS RELATED DEFECT REPAIRS PERFORMED BY ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER WERE NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY
(Assigned to Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)

CHASSIS, LLC'S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT WORKHORSE CUSTOM

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

Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude Workhorse from claiming that certain

18 complaints by Plaintiff were not covered by Workhorse's limited warranty.
19 Workhorse's position is more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum of
20
21

points and authority.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
i.

22

INTRODUCTION

23 In her motion in limine, Plaintiff attempts to bootstrap Workhorse by having

24 the Court rule that .ê of the repairs performed by any repair facility that she
25 26

brought her motor home to are now covered under Workhorse's limited warranty
because the Court has dismissed Defendant Fleetwood from this case. Plaintiff's

27 motion is without merit. First, Plaintiff's motion fails to identify any specific
?R repairs records or any other evidence that she wants to the Court to exclude or
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS
1 Document 212

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\306798\1

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 1 of 6

1

rule upon. Instead, she seeks to have the Court rule in a vacuum that all repairs
are now covered by Workhorse's limited warranty. Second, it is Plaintiff's burden

2 3

of proof at trial to show that her complaint about a specific chassis component is

4
5

(1) a defect in materials or workmanship, and (2) that the alleged defect is
covered under the terms of Workhorse's limited warranty. This issue is Plaintiff's

6
7

burden of proof and an issue for the jury to decide, however, Plaintiff seeks to
circumvent her burden of proof through her motion. Therefore, Workhorse

8 9

requests that the Court deny her motion in limine.
II.

10
11

WORKHORSE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTEST REPAIRS THAT WERE NOT PERFORMED UNDER ITS WARRANTY OR REPAIRS THAT IT DID NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE.
The underlying assumption of Plaintiff's motion is that because the Court

12

13 14 15 16
17

granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Fleetwood all repairs must be

the responsibility of Workhorse. However, Plaintiff does not cite any specific
repair orders for the Court to base a ruling upon. Instead, Plaintiff seeks a broad
sweeping order that all repairs are now covered under Workhorse's limited
warranty. Because Plaintiff has not identified any specific repair record or any

18 19

evidence for the Court to rule upon, the Court is left to imagine what possible
evidence Plaintiff even wants the Court to exclude.

20
21

In order to show that Workhorse allegedly breached the limited warranty,
Plaintiff must show to her complaint about a specific chassis component is (1) a

22

defect in materials or workmanship, and (2) that the alleged defect is covered
under the terms of Workhorse's limited warranty. See Court's Order Granting

23 24 25 26
27
?R

Fleetwood's Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 23:27; Nevada Contract Services.
Inc. v. Squirrel Companies. Inc., 119 Nev. 157, 161, 68 P.3d 896, 899 (Nev. 2003);

Chaurasia v. General Motors Corporation, 126 P.3d 165, 169 (Ariz. App. 2006).

The effect of granting Plaintiff's motion will be to allow her to circumvent her
burden of proof at trial.

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\306798\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

2 Document 212

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 2 of 6

1

Further, Workhorse is only responsible for those repairs that are reflected

2 3

on its warranty claims history for the chassis of the subject motor home. See
Warranty Claims History, attached as Exhibit 1. In order to prove her case, it is
anticipated that Plaintiff will seek to admit a stack of repair records into evidence

4
5

and argue to the jury that simply based upon a stack of repair records that
Workhorse breached its limited written warranty. At the same time, Plaintiff

6
7

wants to prevent Workhorse from contesting certain repair records and/or arguing
that certain repairs were performed without Workhorse's permission or are the
responsibility of another manufacturer. Allowing Plaintiff's counsel to do that at

8 9

10
11

trial is prejudicial to Workhorse because it implies that Workhorse failed to
properly repair the chassis. To counter this prejudice, Workhorse should be
entitled to challenge those repairs that were not submitted to it and were not
performed pursuant to its limited written warranty.

12

13 14 15 16
17

Plaintiff's motion fails to cite to any evidentiary rule that would preclude
Workhorse from arguing that there were repairs performed on the chassis without

the knowledge or permission of Workhorse. Plaintiff concedes the obviously
relevant nature of Workhorse's argument. There is simply no reason why any
alleged undue prejudice would substantially outweigh the probative value of being

18 19

able to show that certain repairs (even though Plaintiff has not identified any) do
not fall within the scope of Workhorse's limited warranty.

20
21

Plaintiff argues that because Workhorse did not file a response to
Fleetwood's Motion for Summary Judgment it is some how now estopped from
arguing that repairs not submitted to Workhorse are not covered under its limited

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

written warranty. Plaintiff's argument is nonsensicaL. Workhorse was not under
an obligation to respond to a motion for summary judgment that was not filed
against it. It was Fleetwood's motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff, not

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\306798\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

3 Document 212

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 3 of 6

1

Fleetwood's motion for summary judgment against Workhorse.1

2 3

Plaintiff also argues that 15 U.S.C. § 2307 prevents Workhorse from
claiming that some repairs were not performed under its limited written warranty.

4
5

Section 2307 only allows Workhorse to designate repair facilities to perform

some of the duties its limited written warranty. It does not mean that all repairs to
a product by an authorized-service facility always fall within the scope of the
manufacturer's limited warranty. For instance, an authorized repair facility may

6
7

8 9

have performed a recall on a chassis component. A recall is not an repair

covered under a warranty, but is an repair performed on all chassis covered
under the recall regardless of whether they are still covered under their particular

10
11

warranty or not.
III.

12

CONCLUSION

13 14 15 16
17

Workhorse will not contest those repairs that are reflected on its warranty

claims history, which is consistent with its discovery responses (attached as
Exhibit A to Plaintiff's motion). However, Workhorse should have the ability to
challenge those repairs that Plaintiff claims are covered under Workhorse's
limited warranty that are not reflected on the warranty claims history. If Plaintiff is

18 19

allowed to use repair orders to argue that Workhorse has breached its limited

warranty, then Workhorse should be entitled to explain the circumstances behind
those repair orders.

20
21

Further, Plaintiff's motion is without merit because she does not even
identify what repairs should be covered under Workhorse's limited warranty, but

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

still seeks an order from the Court mandating that all repairs on the motor home

1 Plaintiff also now argues that her "major defect has been chassis." This is
surprising considering that Plaintiff's own expert spent over 3 % pages of his 4
page report discussing all of the alleged defects with Fleetwood covered

components, and spent less than a quarter of a page discussing any problems
with the chassis.
: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\306798\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

4 Document 212

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 4 of 6

1

are now the responsibility of Workhorse.

Plaintiff should not be allowed to

2 3

circumvent her burden of proof at trial by seeking a judicial declaration through

her motion in limine. Therefore, Workhorse requests that the Court deny her
motion.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of September, 2006.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

4
5

6
7

8 9

10
11

By: /s/ David W. Williams Negatu Molla David W. Williams
2901 North Central Avenue

Suite 1600, Phoenix Plaza

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
Attorneys for Defendant

12

13 14 15 16
17

18 19

20
21

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\306798\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

5 Document 212

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 5 of 6

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

3 attached document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk's Office using the

4 CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the
5 following CM/ECF registrants:
6

Jennifer Basola

7 KROHN & MOSS, L TD
8 111 W Monroe, Suite 711

Phoenix, AZ 85003 9 Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11

12

s/ Judy Kaelin

13 14 15 16
17

18 19

20
21

22

23 24 25 26
27
?R

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\306798\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

6 Document 212

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 6 of 6