Document for LISA HILL V QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                PESTOTNIK LLP                                                         ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
     Ross H. Hyslop (149358)                                               SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                                                           COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
     501 W. Broadway, Suite 1025
                                                                           12/7/2023 3:55 PM
     San Diego, California 92101
     Tel: 619.237.3000
     Fax: 619.342.8020

     Attorneys for Plaintiff LISA HILL, on behalf of herself,
     the proposed class, all others similarly situated, and on
     behalf of the general public

                       THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                  FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO



10   LISA HILL, an individual, on behalf of herself,         Case No. CIV DS1826573
     the proposed class(es), all others similarly
11   situated, and on behalf of the general public,          CLASS ACTION
12                       Plaintiff,                          PLAINTIFF LISA HILL’S REPLY
                                                             MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13       Vv.                                                 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
                                                             MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14   QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a                          ADJUDICATION AGAINST
     California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,          DEFENDANT QUAID HARLEY-
15   inclusive,                                              DAVIDSON, INC. (“QHD”) AND IN
                                                             FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON THE
16              Defendants.                                  SECOND (FAL), THIRD (CLRA),
                                                             EIGHTH (UNJUST ENRICHMENT)
17                                                           AND NINTH (UCL) CAUSES OF
     QUAID HARLEY-DAVIDSON,             INC., a              ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
18   California Corporation,                                 AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND ON
                                                             QHD’S DUTY OF DISCLOSURE
19
                         Cross-Complainant,                  Date:       December 13, 2023
20       v.                                                  Time:       8:30 a.m.
                                                             Judge:      Hon. Wilfred J. Schneider
21   HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY,                          Location:   Department S32
     INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and ROES      1
22                                                           San Bernardino Superior Court
     through 10, inclusive,
                                                             247 West Third Street
23                                                           San Bernardino, CA 92415-0201
                         Cross-Defendants.
24                                                           Unlimited Civil Case
                                                             Complaint Filed:     10/05/2018
25                                                           FAC Filed:           3/4/2019
                                                             SAC Filed:           5/22/2019
26                                                           Trial:               8/5/2024

27                                                           Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
                                                             Wilfred J. Schneider
28

               PLAINTIFF’S REPLY MPA ISO MOTION             FOR SUMMARY        ADJUDICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                        Pg No.

           QHD’s   Opposition Brief Is Five Pages Longer Than Permitted, and
           Considered Late

     IL.   QHD’s   Opposition “Evidence” Is Largely Built on Inadmissible “Sham”
           Declarations

           A       QHD Admitted That, For Both Hill’s Motorcycle and for All Class
                   Members, It Performed No PDI Other Than As ae          a the
                   Manufacturer..

                   QHD’s   Contention That PDI Typically Takes “Three Hours”      Is
                   Squarely Contradicted the Testimony of QHD’s PMQ
10
                   On Plaintiff's Individual Claim, QHD Admitted the Motorcycle Was
11                 Advertised and Sold to PlaintiffAs “New,” and That QHD Made No
                   Disclosures to Her That It Had Been Previously Been Sold or
12                 Registered

13                 QHD Admitted in PMQ Testimony That Multiple “Personnel
                   Issues” at QHD Caused Delays Exceeding Six Months for
14                 Submission of DMV Paperwork
15
     TI.   Apart from “Sham” Declarations,     QHD Relies on Other Inadmissible
16         Evidence, Too

17         A       A Party’s Own Discovery Responses Are Inadmissible

18         B.      “Evidence”    Based on “Information and Belief,” or Conjecture and
                   Supposition, Is Inadmissible
19
     IV    QHD’s   Legal and Factual Arguments Must Be Rejected
20
           A       Whether Dealers May Perform Additional PDI Is Truly Irrelevant
21

22         B       QHD’s “Partial Compensation”     Position Is Based on Numerous
                   Fallacies.
23
                   QHD’s “Inducement” Argument Is Meritless
24
                   QHD’s “Private Contract” Argument Finds No Support in California
25                 Law
26                 QHD    a       Its Statements About “DLR an      ae Omission
                   Claims...                                                               10
27

28                 UCL,   FAL,   and CLRA Remedies Are “Cumulative’                        10



            PLAINTIFF’S REPLY MPA ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION