Preview
SCALI RASMUSSEN, PC
Halbert B. Rasmussen, Esq. (SBN 108566)
hrasmussen@scalilaw.com I L E D
COURT 0F CALuFORNaA
IOR
Dana R. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 302974) SlJcFBELTNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
dcohn@scalilaw.com SAN BERNARDW) msirRICT
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 9001 7 SEP 27 2021
Telephone: 213.239.5622
Facsimile: 213.239.5623 r," n/
k.‘
BY -————-
.
”Ta FAEL HERNANDEZ, DEPUTY
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC, a California
corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 LISA HILL, an individual, 0n behalf 0f herself, Case N0. CIVDSl 826573
{Q??E
the proposed class(es), all other similarly CLASS ACTION
12 situated, and 0n behalf 0f the general public,
“vii
DEFENDANT/CROSS-C OMPLAINANT
QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC.'S
‘
gsmussen
Q5 13 Plaintiff,
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF LISA HILL'S
AREAS
14 vs. OPPOSITION TO ITS PETITION TO
3
COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY
QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC, a
Wm»
15 PROCEEDINGS
O
R
I 16 inclusive,
DOES through
California corporation; and 1 10,
Assignedfor All Purposes T0:
Judge: Hon. Wilfred J. Schneider
Scal
17 Defendants. Dept: S32
18 Date: October 4, 2021
QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC, a Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 California corporation,
Complaint Filed: October 5, 201 8
20 Cross—Complainant, FAC Filed: March 4, 2019
SAC Filed: May 22, 2019
21 vs.
Cross-Complaint Filed: May 28, 2021
22 HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, FACC Filed: July 29, 2021
INC, a Wisconsin corporation, and ROES Trial Date:
1 None set
23 through 10, inclusive,
[Filed concurrently with Declarations QfJayme
24 Cross-Defendants. Davis, Jill L. Johnson, Esq., and Dana R. Cohn,
Esq]
25
26
27
28
- 1
_
DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY—DAVIDSON, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF LISA
HILL'S OPPOSITION TO ITS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY PROCEEDINGS
002533765
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
l. INTRODUCTION
Approximately 560 0fthe 1,135 class members signed binding arbitration agreements as to
their motorcycle purchases With Defendant/CrossComplainant Quaid Harley-Davidson, Inc.
(“QHD”). Plaintiff Lisa Hill (“Plaintiff”) spends the majority 0f her Opposition arguing not that
these agreements may not be upheld, but that QHD failed t0 comply with the procedural requirements
when it brought this Petition t0 Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings (“Petition”).
While bringing a petition to compel arbitration in a class action is slightly more complicated
than doing so in a singular action, this is not Defense Counsel’s first rodeo. QHD complied with its
10 obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Coun should compel t0 arbitration those 560
11 class members Who signed valid, binding and enforceable arbitration agreements.
£131???
12 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
1h? h
'
13‘
{3K
Thé Couft is highly fa'miliarswith the précedural afid factfial history of Plaihtiffs class fiction;
bie‘an
l4 therefore, QHD limits this section to what has occurred since it filed its Petition. QHD provided the
ScaliRa‘Smussen
15 class administrator and class counsel with the full list 0f class members, delineated by those
16 customers who signed arbitration agreements, and those who did not. (Declaration 0f Jayme Davis
l7 (“Davis Dec1.”) at 11
8-9; Declaration of Dana R. Cohn, Esq. (“Cohn Decl.”) at 1] 4-5.) The class
18 notice has since gone out to all class members via email or United States mail. (Cohn Dec]. at fl 5.)
19 After both events occurred, Plaintiff filed her Opposition.
20 III. ARGUMENT
21 A. Plaintiff’s Opposition t0 QHD’s Petition is Untimelv.
22 Plaintiff failed t0 file her Opposition within the nine coun days required by California Code
23 of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005(b). Plaintiff filed her Opposition 0n Wednesday,
24 September 22, 202] but the hearing , is scheduled for Monday, October 4, 2021. (Cohn Dec]. at 1] 6.)
25 The Opposition is thus untimely and should be disregarded by the Court.
26 B. QHD Sufficientlv Plead the Affirmative Defense ofArbitration in its FAC and SAC.
27 Plaintiff inaccurately asserts that QHD failed to plead arbitration as an affirmative defense.
28 In its Answer to Plaintiff’s FAC, QHD’s eighteenth affirmative defense was entitled “Failure to
_ 2 _
DEFENDANT/CROSS—COMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF LISA
HILL'S OPPOSITION TO ITS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY PROCEEDINGS
002533765
Preview
SCALI RASMUSSEN, PC Halbert B. Rasmussen, Esq. (SBN 108566) hrasmussen@scalilaw.com I L E D COURT 0F CALuFORNaA IOR Dana R. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 302974) SlJcFBELTNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO dcohn@scalilaw.com SAN BERNARDW) msirRICT 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 9001 7 SEP 27 2021 Telephone: 213.239.5622 Facsimile: 213.239.5623 r," n/ k.‘ BY -————- . ”Ta FAEL HERNANDEZ, DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC, a California corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 LISA HILL, an individual, 0n behalf 0f herself, Case N0. CIVDSl 826573 {Q??E the proposed class(es), all other similarly CLASS ACTION 12 situated, and 0n behalf 0f the general public, “vii DEFENDANT/CROSS-C OMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC.'S ‘ gsmussen Q5 13 Plaintiff, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF LISA HILL'S AREAS 14 vs. OPPOSITION TO ITS PETITION TO 3 COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC, a Wm» 15 PROCEEDINGS O R I 16 inclusive, DOES through California corporation; and 1 10, Assignedfor All Purposes T0: Judge: Hon. Wilfred J. Schneider Scal 17 Defendants. Dept: S32 18 Date: October 4, 2021 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC, a Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 California corporation, Complaint Filed: October 5, 201 8 20 Cross—Complainant, FAC Filed: March 4, 2019 SAC Filed: May 22, 2019 21 vs. Cross-Complaint Filed: May 28, 2021 22 HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, FACC Filed: July 29, 2021 INC, a Wisconsin corporation, and ROES Trial Date: 1 None set 23 through 10, inclusive, [Filed concurrently with Declarations QfJayme 24 Cross-Defendants. Davis, Jill L. Johnson, Esq., and Dana R. Cohn, Esq] 25 26 27 28 - 1 _ DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY—DAVIDSON, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF LISA HILL'S OPPOSITION TO ITS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY PROCEEDINGS 002533765 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES l. INTRODUCTION Approximately 560 0fthe 1,135 class members signed binding arbitration agreements as to their motorcycle purchases With Defendant/CrossComplainant Quaid Harley-Davidson, Inc. (“QHD”). Plaintiff Lisa Hill (“Plaintiff”) spends the majority 0f her Opposition arguing not that these agreements may not be upheld, but that QHD failed t0 comply with the procedural requirements when it brought this Petition t0 Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings (“Petition”). While bringing a petition to compel arbitration in a class action is slightly more complicated than doing so in a singular action, this is not Defense Counsel’s first rodeo. QHD complied with its 10 obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Coun should compel t0 arbitration those 560 11 class members Who signed valid, binding and enforceable arbitration agreements. £131??? 12 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY 1h? h ' 13‘ {3K Thé Couft is highly fa'miliarswith the précedural afid factfial history of Plaihtiffs class fiction; bie‘an l4 therefore, QHD limits this section to what has occurred since it filed its Petition. QHD provided the ScaliRa‘Smussen 15 class administrator and class counsel with the full list 0f class members, delineated by those 16 customers who signed arbitration agreements, and those who did not. (Declaration 0f Jayme Davis l7 (“Davis Dec1.”) at 11 8-9; Declaration of Dana R. Cohn, Esq. (“Cohn Decl.”) at 1] 4-5.) The class 18 notice has since gone out to all class members via email or United States mail. (Cohn Dec]. at fl 5.) 19 After both events occurred, Plaintiff filed her Opposition. 20 III. ARGUMENT 21 A. Plaintiff’s Opposition t0 QHD’s Petition is Untimelv. 22 Plaintiff failed t0 file her Opposition within the nine coun days required by California Code 23 of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005(b). Plaintiff filed her Opposition 0n Wednesday, 24 September 22, 202] but the hearing , is scheduled for Monday, October 4, 2021. (Cohn Dec]. at 1] 6.) 25 The Opposition is thus untimely and should be disregarded by the Court. 26 B. QHD Sufficientlv Plead the Affirmative Defense ofArbitration in its FAC and SAC. 27 Plaintiff inaccurately asserts that QHD failed to plead arbitration as an affirmative defense. 28 In its Answer to Plaintiff’s FAC, QHD’s eighteenth affirmative defense was entitled “Failure to _ 2 _ DEFENDANT/CROSS—COMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF LISA HILL'S OPPOSITION TO ITS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY PROCEEDINGS 002533765