On July 15, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Rowan, Sandra,
and
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
General Motors Llc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\a \a
ORHGUNAL
SUPERIORFCAUIISTEFPDI' IF ‘R 'A
Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) COUNTY 0F SAN BERJNARtSiNd
e-mail: tdolin/chlpattomeycom SAN RERW‘P‘C'NO D'STR'CT
Debora Rabieian (SBN 315022) .
e-mail: drabieian/dslpattomeyfiom OCT 2 3 2023
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
’
BY ,‘yvvwz, ,L
'
1888 Century Park East. Floor l9 '7)“ DEP._,-’;;:
Los Angeles. CA 90067
Telephone: (3 0) 929-4900
l
Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
OOOOQOUIAUJNH
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SANDRA ROWAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAXED
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SANDRA ROWAN, CASE NO: ClVSBZl 19439
Plaintiff, Case Initiated: July I5, 2021
vs.
Hon. Michael A. Sachs
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; and DOES 1 Dept- 323-SBJC
through IO, inclusive,
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0
Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
OF COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER
NNNNNNNNNr—‘u—d—nfl—‘u—‘u—‘u—p—‘H
VEHICLE OWNERS
Complaint Filed: July 15, 2021
TRC: November 2, 2023
OONGMhWN—‘OCOONQMAWNfl
Trial: November 6, 2023
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant/warrantor GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘s (“GM” or “Defendant”) Motion in
Limine No. 3, which seeks t0 exclude any attempts by plaintiffand/or her counsel to
introduce evidence/testimony about records from the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA). GM warranty data. complaints from other sources such as online car
Page 1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER VEHICLE OWNERS
H blogs, or lawsuits filed by other customers, fails t0: (l) meet its burden to exclude any
contested evidence with respect to evidence of similar customer complaints and similar
lawsuits; and (2) identify, with any degree of specificity, what specific evidence Defendant
seeks to exclude with respect t0 all four broad categories designated by Defendant.
GM’s Motion fails to meet its burden for exclusion with respect to evidence 0f similar
OOOONONUIhWN
customer complaints from online car blogs and similar lawsuits. It also fails to identify with
specificity the evidence sought to be excluded and the bases for those exclusions. Defendant‘s
broad classifications fail to provide the Court with the specificity required t0 assess issues of
relevance and to undertake the balancing of interests required by Evidence Code section 352.
Based 0n evidence obtained during discovery in this matter. Attorneys for Plaintiff
SANDRA ROWAN (“Plaintiff“) intend to introduce such evidence to establish (through
admissible circumstantial and other evidence) that:
1. The 2016 Cadillac Escalade vehicle suffered from defects. including but not
limited to defects related to the transmission; defects causing a connector to hang below the
right rear bumper; defects causing the failure and/or replacement ofcircuits in the connector;
defects requiring the performance of Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) l6-NA-l 71 and/or
l6-NA-36l; defects requiring the repair 0f the defroster tab; defects causing the radio display
to delaminate; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the radio control assembly;
defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the driver‘s side and/or passenger side left
and/or right front assist step motor; defects causing a foul odor from the air
conditioner/heater vents; defects causing ajerk upon acceleration; defects causing a
hesitation upon acceleration; defects requiring the evap case and evaporator to be cleaned and
disinfected with an odor neutralizer; defects requiring the roofto be repaired; defects causing
the left running board to stay out after the shutting the Vehicle off; defects requiring the roof
console to be realigned; defects causing the illumination of the driver’s assist message;
defects causing the failure and/or replacement ofthe front view camera; defects causing the
failure and/or replacement ofthe steering wheel spoke; defects causing a high pitch squealing
Page 2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER VEHICLE OWNERS
Document Filed Date
October 23, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 15, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\a \a ORHGUNAL SUPERIORFCAUIISTEFPDI' IF ‘R 'A Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) COUNTY 0F SAN BERJNARtSiNd e-mail: tdolin/chlpattomeycom SAN RERW‘P‘C'NO D'STR'CT Debora Rabieian (SBN 315022) . e-mail: drabieian/dslpattomeyfiom OCT 2 3 2023 STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ’ BY ,‘yvvwz, ,L ' 1888 Century Park East. Floor l9 '7)“ DEP._,-’;;: Los Angeles. CA 90067 Telephone: (3 0) 929-4900 l Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 OOOOQOUIAUJNH Attorneys for Plaintiff, SANDRA ROWAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAXED FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SANDRA ROWAN, CASE NO: ClVSBZl 19439 Plaintiff, Case Initiated: July I5, 2021 vs. Hon. Michael A. Sachs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; and DOES 1 Dept- 323-SBJC through IO, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER NNNNNNNNNr—‘u—d—nfl—‘u—‘u—‘u—p—‘H VEHICLE OWNERS Complaint Filed: July 15, 2021 TRC: November 2, 2023 OONGMhWN—‘OCOONQMAWNfl Trial: November 6, 2023 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/warrantor GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘s (“GM” or “Defendant”) Motion in Limine No. 3, which seeks t0 exclude any attempts by plaintiffand/or her counsel to introduce evidence/testimony about records from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). GM warranty data. complaints from other sources such as online car Page 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER VEHICLE OWNERS H blogs, or lawsuits filed by other customers, fails t0: (l) meet its burden to exclude any contested evidence with respect to evidence of similar customer complaints and similar lawsuits; and (2) identify, with any degree of specificity, what specific evidence Defendant seeks to exclude with respect t0 all four broad categories designated by Defendant. GM’s Motion fails to meet its burden for exclusion with respect to evidence 0f similar OOOONONUIhWN customer complaints from online car blogs and similar lawsuits. It also fails to identify with specificity the evidence sought to be excluded and the bases for those exclusions. Defendant‘s broad classifications fail to provide the Court with the specificity required t0 assess issues of relevance and to undertake the balancing of interests required by Evidence Code section 352. Based 0n evidence obtained during discovery in this matter. Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA ROWAN (“Plaintiff“) intend to introduce such evidence to establish (through admissible circumstantial and other evidence) that: 1. The 2016 Cadillac Escalade vehicle suffered from defects. including but not limited to defects related to the transmission; defects causing a connector to hang below the right rear bumper; defects causing the failure and/or replacement ofcircuits in the connector; defects requiring the performance of Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) l6-NA-l 71 and/or l6-NA-36l; defects requiring the repair 0f the defroster tab; defects causing the radio display to delaminate; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the radio control assembly; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the driver‘s side and/or passenger side left and/or right front assist step motor; defects causing a foul odor from the air conditioner/heater vents; defects causing ajerk upon acceleration; defects causing a hesitation upon acceleration; defects requiring the evap case and evaporator to be cleaned and disinfected with an odor neutralizer; defects requiring the roofto be repaired; defects causing the left running board to stay out after the shutting the Vehicle off; defects requiring the roof console to be realigned; defects causing the illumination of the driver’s assist message; defects causing the failure and/or replacement ofthe front view camera; defects causing the failure and/or replacement ofthe steering wheel spoke; defects causing a high pitch squealing Page 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER VEHICLE OWNERS