On October 05, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hill, Lisa,
and
Quaid Harley-Davidson, Inc. A California Corporation,
for Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
OR+G|NAL
DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
ABIRAMI GNANADESIGAN, SBN 263375
N agnanadesigan@dykema.c0m .1
PAUL L. NYSTROM (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) l a >1" L
SUFtRIOR COURT CF CFLIFORT‘ILK
E r,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
pnystr0m@dykema.com SAE ”QNARDM') DISTRKIT
JONATHAN KAMA (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
jkama@dykema.c0m JUN 1 4 2023
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90071
5”
Telephone: (2 1 3) 457-1 800 BY ‘
\OOONQUIAD)
Facsimile: (2 1 3) 457-1 850 ANTHONY N m sNh‘z, ‘
133m?
FAX HARLEY-
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant,
DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
BY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
11
90071
LLP
12 LISA HILL, an individual Case No. CIVDS 1 826573
AVENUE
CALIFORNIA
13 Plaintiff, Assigned t0 Hon. Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr.
GOSSETT 2100
GRAND Dept. S32
14 v.
SUITE
SOUTH
ANGELEs,
15 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a
DYKEMA
333
California Corporation, and DOES through 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER
Los
16 10, inclusive,, TO SECOND AMENDED CROSS-
COMPLAINT
17 Defendant.
18 Date: June 22, 2023
Time: 8:15 A.M.
19 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a
Dept: S32
California Corporation,
20
Cross-Complainant,
21
22 v.
23 HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation,
24 and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive,
25
Cross-Defendants.
26
27
28
4868-9999-3962.1 1
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
AWN Quaid’s Opposition fails to provide any credible basis for the Court to rule any differently
than it did when it sustained Harley-Davidson’s demurrer to Quaid’s fifth and sixth causes 0f
action in its Amended Cross-Complaint. The Court recognized that it did not appear that Quaid’s
California Vehicle Code §24014 claim could be remedied with leave t0 amend. Quaid’s
\OOO\]O\UI
Opposition only confirms the Court was correct, as section 24014 regulates the conduct of dealers
and does not provide a cause 0f action by a dealer against a manufacturer. With regard to Quaid’s
breach of fiduciary duty cause 0f action, while the Court ruled that Quaid’s Amended Cross-
10 Complaint had failed to adequately describe what the specific breach of fiduciary duty was and
11 how it damaged Quaid, Quaid’s Opposition fails to identify any new allegations that address these
90071
LLP
12 deficiencies. They were not identified because Quaid failed to address them in its Second
STREET
CALIFORNIA
13 Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”). Instead of dismissing its claim, Quaid is requiring Harley-
GOSSETT 2200
FLOWER
14 DaVidson t0 again seek its dismissal through this demurrer. Quaid has already amended its Cross—
SUITE
SOUTH
ANGELES,
15 Complaint two times. No amendment can change the fact that section 24014 only applies to
DYKEMA
444
Los
16 dealers, and Quaid has already failed to take advantage of its opportunity to address the
17 deficiencies with its breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. Therefore, the Court should sustain
‘
18 the Demurrer Without leave to amend.
19 Il. OUAID’S ARGUMENTS DO NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT ITS FIFTH CAUSE
20 OF ACTION FAILS BECAUSE SECTION 24014 REGULATES THE CONDUCT
21 OF DEALERS.
22 A. The Court Has Already Construed Vehicle Code $24014 (Pre—2019) To Be
23 Directed Onlv To A Dealer’s Conduct And To Not Provide A Cause Of Action
24
25 1
It is unclear attempted to provide an inaccurate impression that Harley-
why Quaid has
Davidson’s counsel engaged in anything other than a robust meet and confer with Quaid’s
26 counsel. (See Opp., p. 7). As the attached Declaration of Abirami Gnanadesigan demonstrates, it
took substantial effort to get Quaid’s counsel to meet and confer, and Quaid’s counsel had the
27
benefit of receiving and reviewing Harley-Davidson’s Demurrer prior to the meet and confer and
28 before it was filed.
4868999939621 2
REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F DEMURRER To SECOND AMENDED Ckoss—COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
June 14, 2023
Case Filing Date
October 05, 2018
Category
Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
OR+G|NAL DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP ABIRAMI GNANADESIGAN, SBN 263375 N agnanadesigan@dykema.c0m .1 PAUL L. NYSTROM (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) l a >1" L SUFtRIOR COURT CF CFLIFORT‘ILK E r, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO pnystr0m@dykema.com SAE ”QNARDM') DISTRKIT JONATHAN KAMA (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) jkama@dykema.c0m JUN 1 4 2023 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90071 5” Telephone: (2 1 3) 457-1 800 BY ‘ \OOONQUIAD) Facsimile: (2 1 3) 457-1 850 ANTHONY N m sNh‘z, ‘ 133m? FAX HARLEY- Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC. BY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 11 90071 LLP 12 LISA HILL, an individual Case No. CIVDS 1 826573 AVENUE CALIFORNIA 13 Plaintiff, Assigned t0 Hon. Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr. GOSSETT 2100 GRAND Dept. S32 14 v. SUITE SOUTH ANGELEs, 15 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a DYKEMA 333 California Corporation, and DOES through 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER Los 16 10, inclusive,, TO SECOND AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT 17 Defendant. 18 Date: June 22, 2023 Time: 8:15 A.M. 19 QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a Dept: S32 California Corporation, 20 Cross-Complainant, 21 22 v. 23 HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, 24 and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, 25 Cross-Defendants. 26 27 28 4868-9999-3962.1 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AWN Quaid’s Opposition fails to provide any credible basis for the Court to rule any differently than it did when it sustained Harley-Davidson’s demurrer to Quaid’s fifth and sixth causes 0f action in its Amended Cross-Complaint. The Court recognized that it did not appear that Quaid’s California Vehicle Code §24014 claim could be remedied with leave t0 amend. Quaid’s \OOO\]O\UI Opposition only confirms the Court was correct, as section 24014 regulates the conduct of dealers and does not provide a cause 0f action by a dealer against a manufacturer. With regard to Quaid’s breach of fiduciary duty cause 0f action, while the Court ruled that Quaid’s Amended Cross- 10 Complaint had failed to adequately describe what the specific breach of fiduciary duty was and 11 how it damaged Quaid, Quaid’s Opposition fails to identify any new allegations that address these 90071 LLP 12 deficiencies. They were not identified because Quaid failed to address them in its Second STREET CALIFORNIA 13 Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”). Instead of dismissing its claim, Quaid is requiring Harley- GOSSETT 2200 FLOWER 14 DaVidson t0 again seek its dismissal through this demurrer. Quaid has already amended its Cross— SUITE SOUTH ANGELES, 15 Complaint two times. No amendment can change the fact that section 24014 only applies to DYKEMA 444 Los 16 dealers, and Quaid has already failed to take advantage of its opportunity to address the 17 deficiencies with its breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. Therefore, the Court should sustain ‘ 18 the Demurrer Without leave to amend. 19 Il. OUAID’S ARGUMENTS DO NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT ITS FIFTH CAUSE 20 OF ACTION FAILS BECAUSE SECTION 24014 REGULATES THE CONDUCT 21 OF DEALERS. 22 A. The Court Has Already Construed Vehicle Code $24014 (Pre—2019) To Be 23 Directed Onlv To A Dealer’s Conduct And To Not Provide A Cause Of Action 24 25 1 It is unclear attempted to provide an inaccurate impression that Harley- why Quaid has Davidson’s counsel engaged in anything other than a robust meet and confer with Quaid’s 26 counsel. (See Opp., p. 7). As the attached Declaration of Abirami Gnanadesigan demonstrates, it took substantial effort to get Quaid’s counsel to meet and confer, and Quaid’s counsel had the 27 benefit of receiving and reviewing Harley-Davidson’s Demurrer prior to the meet and confer and 28 before it was filed. 4868999939621 2 REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F DEMURRER To SECOND AMENDED Ckoss—COMPLAINT