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
QQHGHNAL
Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010)
e-mail: tdolin/dzslpattomeycom
Debora Rabieian (SBN 3 l 5022) ' Gov CRNARO mo
-
e-mail: drabician@slpattomey.com SUPOESLQS OF SAN t.
CSAN BE RNARDHM
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1888 Century Park East. Floor l9
Los Angeles, CA 90067 .-.r hit} '——-: '
Telephone: (310) 929-4900 ’
d
OOOONQUIAWN—a
Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
{:Y
a/a—Lk‘jfi' i
DEC”?-
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SANDRA ROWAN
Gaxvd
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SANDRA ROWAN, CASE N0..‘ CIVSBZI 19439
Plaintiff, Case Initiated: July 15, 2021
vs.
Hon. Michael A. Sachs
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; and DOES l Dept. $28-SBJC
through 10, inclusive,
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. l TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE
TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT
NNNNNNNNNn—t—d—tt—tu—at—t—ar—iw-fi
Complaint Filed: July 15, 2021
TRC: November 2, 2023
Trial: November 6, 2023
OONQLh-hWNflocooflaUl-bWN"
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This action was brought by the purchaser 0f an automobile against the distributor of the
automobile for breach 0f warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the
“Song-Beverly Act"). Through this motion in limine, Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC
(“Defendant" or “‘GM”) seeks to exclude Plaintiff SANDRA ROWAN ("Plaintiff") from
making arguments related to the Golden Rule. GM’s motion is vague and overbroad and fails to
Page 1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TO EXCLUDE ANY l
REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT
fl identify any specific evidence that Defendant seeks to exclude. As such, Plaintiff respectfully
requests the Court deny Defendant’s motion.
II. ARGUMENT
In order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. (Evid. Code § 350). Evidence is
OOOONONUI$UJN
relevant if it has “any tendency. . .to prove or disprove any disputed fact. . . of consequence t0 the
determination of the action." (Evid. Code § 210).
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) applies a two-part test
to the question ofwhether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase: (l)the vehicle has a nonconformity
t0 warranty: and (2) the manufacturer or its representative is unable to properly repair it after "a
reasonable number of attempts." (Civ. Code § 1793.2). Pursuant to the Song Beverly Act. the
“5
term nonconformity‘ means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or
safety 0f the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee." (Civ. Code § 1793.22 subd. (c)(l )).
The determination ofwhether a vehicle is substantially impaired in its use, value or safety
is an objective test taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the buyer. (Lundy v.
Ford Motor Company (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 472. 478).
As a threshold matter. neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff‘s counsel intend to incite the jury
with statements that d0 not comport with the “Golden Rule." However. Plaintiffmust be able to
testify about the problems she faced with the vehicle; she must be able to explain the situations
that give context to the vehicle‘s repair history. Plaintiff‘s “specific circumstances“ are relevant
to a determination ofsubstantial impairment. To support a finding that a vehicle was substantially
impaired, Plaintiff'may testify as t0 the impairment of the use. value or safety of the vehicle t0
Plaintiff. As one court held, "[d]ue t0 the intermittent problems, Schreidel avoided using her car
for long trips. thereby reducing its usefulness and value t0 her.“ (Schreidel v. American Honda
Motor C0. (I995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242. 1250). Therefore. thejury must decide whether or not
they can relate to the Plaintiff‘s plight so that it may make an objective finding regarding
substantial impairment.
///
///
Page 2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TO EXCLUDE ANY l
REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT
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
QQHGHNAL Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) e-mail: tdolin/dzslpattomeycom Debora Rabieian (SBN 3 l 5022) ' Gov CRNARO mo - e-mail: drabician@slpattomey.com SUPOESLQS OF SAN t. CSAN BE RNARDHM STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1888 Century Park East. Floor l9 Los Angeles, CA 90067 .-.r hit} '——-: ' Telephone: (310) 929-4900 ’ d OOOONQUIAWN—a Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 {:Y a/a—Lk‘jfi' i DEC”?- Attorneys for Plaintiff, SANDRA ROWAN Gaxvd SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SANDRA ROWAN, CASE N0..‘ CIVSBZI 19439 Plaintiff, Case Initiated: July 15, 2021 vs. Hon. Michael A. Sachs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; and DOES l Dept. $28-SBJC through 10, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO Defendants. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. l TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT NNNNNNNNNn—t—d—tt—tu—at—t—ar—iw-fi Complaint Filed: July 15, 2021 TRC: November 2, 2023 Trial: November 6, 2023 OONQLh-hWNflocooflaUl-bWN" MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This action was brought by the purchaser 0f an automobile against the distributor of the automobile for breach 0f warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Song-Beverly Act"). Through this motion in limine, Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant" or “‘GM”) seeks to exclude Plaintiff SANDRA ROWAN ("Plaintiff") from making arguments related to the Golden Rule. GM’s motion is vague and overbroad and fails to Page 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TO EXCLUDE ANY l REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT fl identify any specific evidence that Defendant seeks to exclude. As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendant’s motion. II. ARGUMENT In order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. (Evid. Code § 350). Evidence is OOOONONUI$UJN relevant if it has “any tendency. . .to prove or disprove any disputed fact. . . of consequence t0 the determination of the action." (Evid. Code § 210). The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) applies a two-part test to the question ofwhether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase: (l)the vehicle has a nonconformity t0 warranty: and (2) the manufacturer or its representative is unable to properly repair it after "a reasonable number of attempts." (Civ. Code § 1793.2). Pursuant to the Song Beverly Act. the “5 term nonconformity‘ means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety 0f the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee." (Civ. Code § 1793.22 subd. (c)(l )). The determination ofwhether a vehicle is substantially impaired in its use, value or safety is an objective test taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the buyer. (Lundy v. Ford Motor Company (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 472. 478). As a threshold matter. neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff‘s counsel intend to incite the jury with statements that d0 not comport with the “Golden Rule." However. Plaintiffmust be able to testify about the problems she faced with the vehicle; she must be able to explain the situations that give context to the vehicle‘s repair history. Plaintiff‘s “specific circumstances“ are relevant to a determination ofsubstantial impairment. To support a finding that a vehicle was substantially impaired, Plaintiff'may testify as t0 the impairment of the use. value or safety of the vehicle t0 Plaintiff. As one court held, "[d]ue t0 the intermittent problems, Schreidel avoided using her car for long trips. thereby reducing its usefulness and value t0 her.“ (Schreidel v. American Honda Motor C0. (I995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242. 1250). Therefore. thejury must decide whether or not they can relate to the Plaintiff‘s plight so that it may make an objective finding regarding substantial impairment. /// /// Page 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT‘S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TO EXCLUDE ANY l REFERENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT