On March 16, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Solis, Javier,
and
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
General Motors Llc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
we
FAXED
MARY ARENS MCBRIDE (SBN 282459)
marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC
1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A
Orange, CA 92867
Telephone: +949 777-6032
Facsimile: +714 844-9035 SUPE fi 8 dub.
be
COUNTY F SAN BE:
TROY D. MCMAHAN (SBN 148694) Rao INO DIS
tmcmahan(@kslaw.com
6 KING & SPALDI LLP SEP 13 2023
50 CaliforniaS uite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111 ) Oar
Telephone: +1415 318 1200 oe,
Facsimile: +1 415 318 1300 THIA BELLAMY.
9 STEPHANIE A. LE (SBN 325428)
sle@kslaw.com
10 KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
1 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone +1 213 443 4355
12 Facsimile: +1213 443 4310
13 Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
16
17
JAVIER SOLIS, an individual, CASE NO. CIV SB 2106801
18
Plainuff, Assigned to the Hon. Gilbert Ochoa in
19
Department S24
Vv
20 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware
21 Limited Liability Company; and DOES | GE eRAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION IN
through 10, inclusive, L INE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY
22 R RE E TO NON-RECOVERABLE
Defendants. DAMAGES
23
24 Complaint Filed: March 16, 2021
Trial Date: September 18, 2023
25
26
27
28
1
GM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXC UDE ANY REFERENCE TO NON-RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
1. Introduction
General Motors LLC (GM) anticipates Plaintiff may attempt to introduce evidence
regarding, or otherwise reference at trial, damages Plaintiff cannot recover as a matter of law,
including: (1) categories of incidental and consequential damages and (11) noneconomic damages,
including damages for emotional distress, because these damages are not recoverable under the
6 Song-Beverly Act. Because Plaintiff cannot recover these damages, such evidence is not relevant
to his claims and inadmissible. (Evid. Code § 350.) Even if admissible, it should be excluded as
8 any probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. (Evid. Code, § 352.)
9 2. Argument
10 a. Certain categories of incidental and consequential damages are not
11 recoverable .
12 GM anticipates Plaintiff
may attempt to introduce evidence of damages including insurance
premiums, maintenance costs, and interest on any potential judgment. However, Song-Beverly
14 does not provide for the recovery of such incidental and consequential damages. Instead, damages
15 under the Act are limited to the sales price of the car (excluding the initial registration fee included
16 in the price) along with damages that are incidental or consequential to breach of warranty. As the
17 Act makes clear, not all money expended during a Plaintiff's use and possession of the car is
18 recoverable. (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d)(2)(B).)
19 Any attempt to introduce evidence of alleged damages with no connection to the breach of
20 warranty itself would be impermi ble. For example, when discu ng the “reason to know’
21 language of Commercial Code section 2715(2)(a), the Court of Appeal in Garlock Sealing
2
22 Technologies, LLC ¥ NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. found that the supplier was liable for
23 consequential damages, 1.e., the cost of repairing those goods, because it was reasonably
24 fore: seable that defective oil seals would be a substantial factor in damaging gear reducer shafts
25 (which included seals). ((2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 955-956.)
26 In contrast, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, and judgment interest are not a
27 foreseeable consequence of the breach of the warranty, and thus, should not be recoverable.
28
7
2
GM'S MOTION IN TIMINE NO 4 TO RXCT INE ANV REFERENCE TO NON-RECOVER ARIF DAMAGES
Document Filed Date
September 13, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 16, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
we FAXED MARY ARENS MCBRIDE (SBN 282459) marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC 1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A Orange, CA 92867 Telephone: +949 777-6032 Facsimile: +714 844-9035 SUPE fi 8 dub. be COUNTY F SAN BE: TROY D. MCMAHAN (SBN 148694) Rao INO DIS tmcmahan(@kslaw.com 6 KING & SPALDI LLP SEP 13 2023 50 CaliforniaS uite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 ) Oar Telephone: +1415 318 1200 oe, Facsimile: +1 415 318 1300 THIA BELLAMY. 9 STEPHANIE A. LE (SBN 325428) sle@kslaw.com 10 KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 1 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone +1 213 443 4355 12 Facsimile: +1213 443 4310 13 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 16 17 JAVIER SOLIS, an individual, CASE NO. CIV SB 2106801 18 Plainuff, Assigned to the Hon. Gilbert Ochoa in 19 Department S24 Vv 20 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware 21 Limited Liability Company; and DOES | GE eRAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION IN through 10, inclusive, L INE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY 22 R RE E TO NON-RECOVERABLE Defendants. DAMAGES 23 24 Complaint Filed: March 16, 2021 Trial Date: September 18, 2023 25 26 27 28 1 GM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXC UDE ANY REFERENCE TO NON-RECOVERABLE DAMAGES 1. Introduction General Motors LLC (GM) anticipates Plaintiff may attempt to introduce evidence regarding, or otherwise reference at trial, damages Plaintiff cannot recover as a matter of law, including: (1) categories of incidental and consequential damages and (11) noneconomic damages, including damages for emotional distress, because these damages are not recoverable under the 6 Song-Beverly Act. Because Plaintiff cannot recover these damages, such evidence is not relevant to his claims and inadmissible. (Evid. Code § 350.) Even if admissible, it should be excluded as 8 any probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. (Evid. Code, § 352.) 9 2. Argument 10 a. Certain categories of incidental and consequential damages are not 11 recoverable . 12 GM anticipates Plaintiff may attempt to introduce evidence of damages including insurance premiums, maintenance costs, and interest on any potential judgment. However, Song-Beverly 14 does not provide for the recovery of such incidental and consequential damages. Instead, damages 15 under the Act are limited to the sales price of the car (excluding the initial registration fee included 16 in the price) along with damages that are incidental or consequential to breach of warranty. As the 17 Act makes clear, not all money expended during a Plaintiff's use and possession of the car is 18 recoverable. (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d)(2)(B).) 19 Any attempt to introduce evidence of alleged damages with no connection to the breach of 20 warranty itself would be impermi ble. For example, when discu ng the “reason to know’ 21 language of Commercial Code section 2715(2)(a), the Court of Appeal in Garlock Sealing 2 22 Technologies, LLC ¥ NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. found that the supplier was liable for 23 consequential damages, 1.e., the cost of repairing those goods, because it was reasonably 24 fore: seable that defective oil seals would be a substantial factor in damaging gear reducer shafts 25 (which included seals). ((2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 955-956.) 26 In contrast, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, and judgment interest are not a 27 foreseeable consequence of the breach of the warranty, and thus, should not be recoverable. 28 7 2 GM'S MOTION IN TIMINE NO 4 TO RXCT INE ANV REFERENCE TO NON-RECOVER ARIF DAMAGES