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
ORNGUNA"
Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) F l 4
SUPERIOR CO‘JRT 0‘: Cl‘ ‘-lr'.;R 'A
e-mail: tdolinflslpattomeyxom COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC
Debora Rabieian (SBN 3 l 5022) SAN BEPNARDINO [I STRICT
e—mail: drabieianfd‘slpattomey.com
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES OCT 2 3 2023
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
OOOOQOUIAUJNF—
1888 Century Park East, Floor l9
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (3 0) 929-4900
1
av
“#fim'fifi ”/7
u}
v
/
Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
SANDRA ROWAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
Gaxvd
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SANDRA ROWAN, CASE NO: CIVSBZI 19439
Plaintiff, Case Initiated: July 15, 2021
VS.
Hon. Michael A. Sachs
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; and DOES l Dept. 528-SBJC
through 10, inclusive,
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
8TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT,
MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE
NNNNNNNNNHt—Afln—Ip—‘p—iu—au—Ar—H
TERM “LEMON LAW” AND THE WORD
“LEMON”
Complaint Filed: July 15, 2021
WNQUIAUJN—‘OWOONQMAUJNH
TRC: November 2, 2023
Trial: November 6, 2023
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant/warrantor GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“‘Defendant” 0r “GM”) moves in
limine to prevent Plaintiff SANDRA ROWAN (“Plaintiff“) and any of Plaintiff‘s witnesses.
including experts, from offering using the term “lemon law" and the word “lemon.” Contrary
Page l
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT.
MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE TERM “LEMON LAW” OR THE WORD “LEMON“
pd
t0 Defendant’s claims, the terms "Lemon Law" and “lemon" are used interchangeably with
both the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Indeed,
not only do the relevant statutes refer t0 repurchased vehicles as “lemons" and require
manufacturers to brand the title 0f such vehicles with “Lemon Law Buyback." Defendant itself
uses the term in its own Owner‘s Manual. According. Defendant‘s Motion should be denied.
OCOONOUIAUJN
II. BACKGROUND
On or about October 7. 2019, Plaintiff purchased a certified pre-owned 2016 Cadillac
Escalade. The Subject Vehicle was manufactured and/or distributed/warranted by GM with,
among other warranties, Defendant‘s express written warranty powertrain warranty which, inter
alia, covers the engine and transmission. Plaintiffalleges that GM knew that the Subject Vehicle
suffered from the Defects but nevertheless failed t0 repurchase the vehicle in willful violation of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act"). Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendant violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. thus prompting the filing of the
underlying action on July 15. 202].
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Defendant's motion fails to meet its burden t0 exclude any contested evidence. The
underlying basis for Defendant‘s motion is Evidence Code section 352. However.
the prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is
designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows
from relevant. highly probative evidence. All evidence which tends to prove guilt
is damaging to the defendant's case. The stronger the evidence. the
prejudicial or
more it is The ‘prejudice‘ referred to in Evidence Code section 352
'prejudicial.‘
applies to evidence which uniquely tends t0 evoke an emotional bias against the
defendant as an individual and which has very little effect 0n the issues.
Donlen v. Ford Motor Company, 2] 7 Cal.App.4th I38. 150 (2013) (emphasis in orig.).
While GM claims the terms “Lemon Law" or “Lemon" are unduly prejudicial. such is not
the case. Contrary to Defendant‘s claims, the court has specifically noted: “[w]e are unpersuaded
by the suggestion the term [“Lemon Law”] is inflammatory and prejudicial when used
interchangeably with the name of the Act." (Jensen v. BMW of N. America, Inc. (1995) 35
Page 2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT.
MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE TERM “LEMON LAW" OR THE WORD “LEMON"
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
ORNGUNA" Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) F l 4 SUPERIOR CO‘JRT 0‘: Cl‘ ‘-lr'.;R 'A e-mail: tdolinflslpattomeyxom COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC Debora Rabieian (SBN 3 l 5022) SAN BEPNARDINO [I STRICT e—mail: drabieianfd‘slpattomey.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES OCT 2 3 2023 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OOOOQOUIAUJNF— 1888 Century Park East, Floor l9 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 0) 929-4900 1 av “#fim'fifi ”/7 u} v / Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 Attorneys for Plaintiff. SANDRA ROWAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA Gaxvd FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SANDRA ROWAN, CASE NO: CIVSBZI 19439 Plaintiff, Case Initiated: July 15, 2021 VS. Hon. Michael A. Sachs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; and DOES l Dept. 528-SBJC through 10, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE NNNNNNNNNHt—Afln—Ip—‘p—iu—au—Ar—H TERM “LEMON LAW” AND THE WORD “LEMON” Complaint Filed: July 15, 2021 WNQUIAUJN—‘OWOONQMAUJNH TRC: November 2, 2023 Trial: November 6, 2023 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/warrantor GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“‘Defendant” 0r “GM”) moves in limine to prevent Plaintiff SANDRA ROWAN (“Plaintiff“) and any of Plaintiff‘s witnesses. including experts, from offering using the term “lemon law" and the word “lemon.” Contrary Page l PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT. MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE TERM “LEMON LAW” OR THE WORD “LEMON“ pd t0 Defendant’s claims, the terms "Lemon Law" and “lemon" are used interchangeably with both the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Indeed, not only do the relevant statutes refer t0 repurchased vehicles as “lemons" and require manufacturers to brand the title 0f such vehicles with “Lemon Law Buyback." Defendant itself uses the term in its own Owner‘s Manual. According. Defendant‘s Motion should be denied. OCOONOUIAUJN II. BACKGROUND On or about October 7. 2019, Plaintiff purchased a certified pre-owned 2016 Cadillac Escalade. The Subject Vehicle was manufactured and/or distributed/warranted by GM with, among other warranties, Defendant‘s express written warranty powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and transmission. Plaintiffalleges that GM knew that the Subject Vehicle suffered from the Defects but nevertheless failed t0 repurchase the vehicle in willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act"). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. thus prompting the filing of the underlying action on July 15. 202]. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS Defendant's motion fails to meet its burden t0 exclude any contested evidence. The underlying basis for Defendant‘s motion is Evidence Code section 352. However. the prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant. highly probative evidence. All evidence which tends to prove guilt is damaging to the defendant's case. The stronger the evidence. the prejudicial or more it is The ‘prejudice‘ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 'prejudicial.‘ applies to evidence which uniquely tends t0 evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect 0n the issues. Donlen v. Ford Motor Company, 2] 7 Cal.App.4th I38. 150 (2013) (emphasis in orig.). While GM claims the terms “Lemon Law" or “Lemon" are unduly prejudicial. such is not the case. Contrary to Defendant‘s claims, the court has specifically noted: “[w]e are unpersuaded by the suggestion the term [“Lemon Law”] is inflammatory and prejudicial when used interchangeably with the name of the Act." (Jensen v. BMW of N. America, Inc. (1995) 35 Page 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT. MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE TERM “LEMON LAW" OR THE WORD “LEMON"