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
SCALI RASMUSSEN. PC
Halbcn B. Rasmussen Esq (SBN 108566)
[\J
lnasmusscn/fi scalilzm com
lulie S. P62113011 Isq. (SBN l83043)
jpearsoncascalilaxx com
800 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 400
Ios Angeles. C A 90017
'I‘elephone: 213.239.5622 0Uw 1 2 2021
Facsimile: 213.239.5623
'
'
' "
By
-
-
_
pm,” ’W‘jm._::431:...“
'
.....
Attorney's for Defendant and Cross-Complainan't -
Ha mgg 1 t, “\AWUL.’ 0'5 {J7 f f
QUAID HARLEY—DAVIDSON. INC.
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
_COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO _
'
LISA HILL. a'n‘ilndikéidll-éll. ‘on behalfofheéelfi "Cise No. CIVD‘s-l‘82657‘3"
2.293"?
the proposed Class(es). all Other similarly CLASS ACTION
<3 situated. and 0n bchall‘ol‘lhc general public, Assigned For All Pmposes To.
'- '
{Ki
‘
_
.
'
. . ,-
'
. ,3 Judge: Hon. Wilt1€d_..l Schneider-
'
‘ ':
53$
Plaintiff. .
-
Dept: S32
IRjasmusSen AifiSix“
vs. CROSS-COMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY-
DAVIDSON,INC-.’S OBJECTION TO
QUAID HARLEY— DAVIDSON. INC. a REQUEST FORJUDICIALNOTICE _
Califomla COrpomtion: and DOE S throuvh
' ' ’
‘
I 10.
inclusive [Filed Sepztra/eb’ (Yonczlrrenlly wiI/7 ('mss-
Complaz’nant’s Opposition [0 Demmv‘er Io
Scat
Defendant. Amended Cmss-(ITOmpIaI'm; Motion 10 Slrike
Porlions ()fDemm‘rer and Declaration OfA birami
Gnanadesigcm, Esq. and, Evidentiary ()b/ectiom
QUAID HARLEY—DAVIDSON. INC. a f0 Declaration QfAbirami Gnanc/deSIgc/n, Esq]
California corporation.
Date: October 25. 2021
Cross-Complainanl, Time: 9:00 a.m.
vs. Complaint Filed: October 5., 20] 8
FAC Filed: March 4. 2019
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, SAC Filed: May 22, 20I9
INC. a Wisconsin corporation. and ROES l
through IO. inclusive. CI‘Oss-Complainl Filed: May 28. 2021
FACC Filed: July 29. 202|
(‘ross-kacndants. Trial Date: N01 Set th
Cross—Complainanl QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. (“Quaid”) respectfully submits
the follmx'ing Objection lo ('mss-Delbndant HARLEY—DAVIDSON I\I1('.')"l"(i)R
COMPANY. TNCfs
(
“HDMC“) Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”).
_
1
_
('l{()SS-('()\II’L:\I‘\:\\'I‘ QLIAID lIARLEY—DAVIDSOX. [\(‘."S
()B.ll:‘.("l'l(7).‘\" TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
WUSOUSFI' I
l. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY HDMC SHOULD BE
[J
DENIED AS CONTRARY TO LAW.
b)
Judicial notice as t0 each 0fthe three documents proposed by HDMC should be denied. As
t0 Exhibit A the “Dealer Agreement”, the case authority Cited by HDMC in support ofits request for
judicial notice pursuant t0 (qlifmma Evidence Code §452(h)
'UI
is inapposite Scott 1. JPMorgan
6.
(/ms’e Bank NA (2013) 214 Cal. App 4th 743, 752— 753 does not authonize judicial notice of
ordinary contracts between private parties, such as the Harley-Davidson Motor
Company Motorcycle
Dealer Contract. In fact. case law holds that “the existence 0f a contract between private parties
cannot be established byJudicia] notice undel Evidence C gcie section 452(h).“ Gould v. Maryland -
Sound Indusllies' Inc. (I995) 31 Cal App. 4th H37 I 145
I'
The ceurt in Scott apploved iu'dicial notice ofa contlact made as an official act 0t the FDIC,
nu;
plusuant to C a/i/mnia Evidence C 'ode § 452(c). Section 452(c) permits judicial notice
be taken 0t
1,»
i
m “[0]fficial acts 0fthe legislative, executive. and judicial departments 0f the United
States and ofany
:2
,x
f
x2
state 01 thc United States. Th‘is includes ‘executivc’ acts performed by administrative agencies."
A
ScaliRaSmussen
(Simons,.(.'algff0rnia Evidence Mczim/(al.(2013) Judicial Notice .Saolll
7-:1 1. p. 558:) Id. relied on'the
'
§
l’DlC's official act 0f pubiishing the Agreement 0n the official FDIC website. and the plaintist
tililure 10 question wilh specificity the authenticity, completeness. 0r legal effect oflhe
Agreement
as grounds for takingjudicial notice OfIhe Agreement. Scot] u JPMorgan (."lmse Bank, NA. (2013)
214 Cal.App.4th 743, 753.
The court in Scott went on to explain that “the essential question whether the
is fact l0 be
judicially noticed is not reasonably subject t0 dispute." Scoll JPMorgan
v. (.‘hase Bank. NA. (2013)
214 Cal.App.4th 743, 759. Where the authenticity and completeness ()fthc agreement is challenged,
judicial notice is improper because “the content and 0f the
legal effect Agreement could not
properly be determined." Scoll v. .JI’MOIv‘gan ('lum'c Bank. Nzl (2013) 2|4 Cal.App.4th 743, 759.
Moreover. in Jos/in v. HAS. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369. 374. thc court noted
“l'l'laking judicial notice 0f a document is not the same as accepting the truth 0f its contents or
accepting a particular interpretation ofils meaning."
.)
(‘ROSS-("OXll’l..;\l.\.»\7\'l' Ql AID Il;\Rl.l;\'—D;\\'|[)S()\. [\(‘fS
OBJEC'I'I(‘):\' 'I'O REQUEST
IIHZFmB“
l-‘OR JUDICIAL \OI‘K‘E
|
Document Filed Date
October 12, 2021
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
SCALI RASMUSSEN. PC Halbcn B. Rasmussen Esq (SBN 108566) [\J lnasmusscn/fi scalilzm com lulie S. P62113011 Isq. (SBN l83043) jpearsoncascalilaxx com 800 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 400 Ios Angeles. C A 90017 'I‘elephone: 213.239.5622 0Uw 1 2 2021 Facsimile: 213.239.5623 ' ' ' " By - - _ pm,” ’W‘jm._::431:...“ ' ..... Attorney's for Defendant and Cross-Complainan't - Ha mgg 1 t, “\AWUL.’ 0'5 {J7 f f QUAID HARLEY—DAVIDSON. INC. SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA _COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO _ ' LISA HILL. a'n‘ilndikéidll-éll. ‘on behalfofheéelfi "Cise No. CIVD‘s-l‘82657‘3" 2.293"? the proposed Class(es). all Other similarly CLASS ACTION <3 situated. and 0n bchall‘ol‘lhc general public, Assigned For All Pmposes To. '- ' {Ki ‘ _ . ' . . ,- ' . ,3 Judge: Hon. Wilt1€d_..l Schneider- ' ‘ ': 53$ Plaintiff. . - Dept: S32 IRjasmusSen AifiSix“ vs. CROSS-COMPLAINANT QUAID HARLEY- DAVIDSON,INC-.’S OBJECTION TO QUAID HARLEY— DAVIDSON. INC. a REQUEST FORJUDICIALNOTICE _ Califomla COrpomtion: and DOE S throuvh ' ' ’ ‘ I 10. inclusive [Filed Sepztra/eb’ (Yonczlrrenlly wiI/7 ('mss- Complaz’nant’s Opposition [0 Demmv‘er Io Scat Defendant. Amended Cmss-(ITOmpIaI'm; Motion 10 Slrike Porlions ()fDemm‘rer and Declaration OfA birami Gnanadesigcm, Esq. and, Evidentiary ()b/ectiom QUAID HARLEY—DAVIDSON. INC. a f0 Declaration QfAbirami Gnanc/deSIgc/n, Esq] California corporation. Date: October 25. 2021 Cross-Complainanl, Time: 9:00 a.m. vs. Complaint Filed: October 5., 20] 8 FAC Filed: March 4. 2019 HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, SAC Filed: May 22, 20I9 INC. a Wisconsin corporation. and ROES l through IO. inclusive. CI‘Oss-Complainl Filed: May 28. 2021 FACC Filed: July 29. 202| (‘ross-kacndants. Trial Date: N01 Set th Cross—Complainanl QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. (“Quaid”) respectfully submits the follmx'ing Objection lo ('mss-Delbndant HARLEY—DAVIDSON I\I1('.')"l"(i)R COMPANY. TNCfs ( “HDMC“) Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”). _ 1 _ ('l{()SS-('()\II’L:\I‘\:\\'I‘ QLIAID lIARLEY—DAVIDSOX. [\(‘."S ()B.ll:‘.("l'l(7).‘\" TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE WUSOUSFI' I l. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY HDMC SHOULD BE [J DENIED AS CONTRARY TO LAW. b) Judicial notice as t0 each 0fthe three documents proposed by HDMC should be denied. As t0 Exhibit A the “Dealer Agreement”, the case authority Cited by HDMC in support ofits request for judicial notice pursuant t0 (qlifmma Evidence Code §452(h) 'UI is inapposite Scott 1. JPMorgan 6. (/ms’e Bank NA (2013) 214 Cal. App 4th 743, 752— 753 does not authonize judicial notice of ordinary contracts between private parties, such as the Harley-Davidson Motor Company Motorcycle Dealer Contract. In fact. case law holds that “the existence 0f a contract between private parties cannot be established byJudicia] notice undel Evidence C gcie section 452(h).“ Gould v. Maryland - Sound Indusllies' Inc. (I995) 31 Cal App. 4th H37 I 145 I' The ceurt in Scott apploved iu'dicial notice ofa contlact made as an official act 0t the FDIC, nu; plusuant to C a/i/mnia Evidence C 'ode § 452(c). Section 452(c) permits judicial notice be taken 0t 1,» i m “[0]fficial acts 0fthe legislative, executive. and judicial departments 0f the United States and ofany :2 ,x f x2 state 01 thc United States. Th‘is includes ‘executivc’ acts performed by administrative agencies." A ScaliRaSmussen (Simons,.(.'algff0rnia Evidence Mczim/(al.(2013) Judicial Notice .Saolll 7-:1 1. p. 558:) Id. relied on'the ' § l’DlC's official act 0f pubiishing the Agreement 0n the official FDIC website. and the plaintist tililure 10 question wilh specificity the authenticity, completeness. 0r legal effect oflhe Agreement as grounds for takingjudicial notice OfIhe Agreement. Scot] u JPMorgan (."lmse Bank, NA. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 753. The court in Scott went on to explain that “the essential question whether the is fact l0 be judicially noticed is not reasonably subject t0 dispute." Scoll JPMorgan v. (.‘hase Bank. NA. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 759. Where the authenticity and completeness ()fthc agreement is challenged, judicial notice is improper because “the content and 0f the legal effect Agreement could not properly be determined." Scoll v. .JI’MOIv‘gan ('lum'c Bank. Nzl (2013) 2|4 Cal.App.4th 743, 759. Moreover. in Jos/in v. HAS. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369. 374. thc court noted “l'l'laking judicial notice 0f a document is not the same as accepting the truth 0f its contents or accepting a particular interpretation ofils meaning." .) (‘ROSS-("OXll’l..;\l.\.»\7\'l' Ql AID Il;\Rl.l;\'—D;\\'|[)S()\. [\(‘fS OBJEC'I'I(‘):\' 'I'O REQUEST IIHZFmB“ l-‘OR JUDICIAL \OI‘K‘E |