On July 26, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Demison, Shanika,
and
Does 1 Through 10,
General Motors Llc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
MARY ARENS MCBRIDE (SBN 282459) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto>
marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO RNIA
THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC
1592 N. Batavia Street, Suite 1A 11/22/2023 7:58 PM
Orange, CA 92867
Telephone: +1 949 777 6032
Facsimile: +1 714 844 9035
TROY D. MCMAHAN (SBN 148694)
tmcmahan@kslaw.com
RACHEL RUBENS (SBN 333886)
rrubens@kslaw.com
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 941 11
Telephone: +1 415 318 1200
Facsimile: +1 415 318 1300
10 Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
13
14
SHANIKA DEMISON, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVSB2 121645
15
Plaintiff, Assigned t0 the Hon. Michael A. Sachs in
16
Department S28
V.
17 MOTION INLIMINE NO. 7
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
MOTORS LLC’S MOTION INLIMINE
18
through 10, inclusive, NO.7 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT,
19 MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE
Defendants. TERM “LEMON LAW,” AND THE WORD
20 “LEMON”
21
Complaint Filed: July 26, 2021
22 Trial Date: December 4, 2023
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
GM’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE
TERM “LEMON LAW,” AND THE WORD “LEMON”
1. Introduction
Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) hereby moves the court in limine, before trial and
selection of a jury, for an order preventing Plaintiff and her counsel of record from making any
argument, mention, or reference to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act”) as the
“lemon law.” GM also seeks an Order precluding any reference 0r argument that the 2017
Chevrolet Malibu (the “Subject Vehicle”) is a “lemon.”
This motion is made on the grounds that the probative value 0f any evidence, argument, or
reference to the “lemon law,” 0r the Subject Vehicle as a “lemon,” is outweighed by the probability
that it Will create a substantial danger 0f undue prejudice and may mislead the jurors under
10 Evidence Code § 352. This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and
11 authorities, the records, and pleadings on file and upon such further evidence as the Court may
12 entertain.
13 2. Argument
14 This Song-Beverly Act case involves the 2017 Chevrolet Malibu, i.e., the “Subject
15 Vehicle.” The “lemon law,” properly known as California Civil Code §1790 et seq., allows buyers
16 recourse Where a new vehicle suffers from the same nonconformity that could not be resolved
17 within a reasonable number of repair attempts. Stated differently, the terms “lemon law” and
18 “lemon” are commonly known to members of the general public t0 mean a motor vehicle that is
19 defective or otherwise has significant problems.
20 Because 0f the hyperbole attached to this case, GM anticipates that Plaintiff, her witnesses,
21 and, in particular, her counsel, will use these terms in trial to inflame and taint the jury and
22 prejudice GM. The reason is simple. These terms carry significant meaning yet dilute the elements
23 0fthe Song-Beverly Act. For example, the general public will often refer t0 a vehicle as a “lemon”
24 if there are any problems, concerns 0r defects, no matter how insubstantial those concerns may be.
25 Similarly, the general public may refer t0 something as a “lemon” if it is unsatisfactory t0 that
26 individual. These are not the elements for establishing a breach of the California Civil Code.
27 Section 352 of the California Evidence Code provides that:
28
2
GM’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE
TERM “LEMON LAW,” AND THE WORD “LEMON”
Document Filed Date
November 22, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 26, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
MARY ARENS MCBRIDE (SBN 282459) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto> marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO RNIA THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC 1592 N. Batavia Street, Suite 1A 11/22/2023 7:58 PM Orange, CA 92867 Telephone: +1 949 777 6032 Facsimile: +1 714 844 9035 TROY D. MCMAHAN (SBN 148694) tmcmahan@kslaw.com RACHEL RUBENS (SBN 333886) rrubens@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Telephone: +1 415 318 1200 Facsimile: +1 415 318 1300 10 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 13 14 SHANIKA DEMISON, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVSB2 121645 15 Plaintiff, Assigned t0 the Hon. Michael A. Sachs in 16 Department S28 V. 17 MOTION INLIMINE NO. 7 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 MOTORS LLC’S MOTION INLIMINE 18 through 10, inclusive, NO.7 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, 19 MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE Defendants. TERM “LEMON LAW,” AND THE WORD 20 “LEMON” 21 Complaint Filed: July 26, 2021 22 Trial Date: December 4, 2023 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 GM’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE TERM “LEMON LAW,” AND THE WORD “LEMON” 1. Introduction Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) hereby moves the court in limine, before trial and selection of a jury, for an order preventing Plaintiff and her counsel of record from making any argument, mention, or reference to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act”) as the “lemon law.” GM also seeks an Order precluding any reference 0r argument that the 2017 Chevrolet Malibu (the “Subject Vehicle”) is a “lemon.” This motion is made on the grounds that the probative value 0f any evidence, argument, or reference to the “lemon law,” 0r the Subject Vehicle as a “lemon,” is outweighed by the probability that it Will create a substantial danger 0f undue prejudice and may mislead the jurors under 10 Evidence Code § 352. This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and 11 authorities, the records, and pleadings on file and upon such further evidence as the Court may 12 entertain. 13 2. Argument 14 This Song-Beverly Act case involves the 2017 Chevrolet Malibu, i.e., the “Subject 15 Vehicle.” The “lemon law,” properly known as California Civil Code §1790 et seq., allows buyers 16 recourse Where a new vehicle suffers from the same nonconformity that could not be resolved 17 within a reasonable number of repair attempts. Stated differently, the terms “lemon law” and 18 “lemon” are commonly known to members of the general public t0 mean a motor vehicle that is 19 defective or otherwise has significant problems. 20 Because 0f the hyperbole attached to this case, GM anticipates that Plaintiff, her witnesses, 21 and, in particular, her counsel, will use these terms in trial to inflame and taint the jury and 22 prejudice GM. The reason is simple. These terms carry significant meaning yet dilute the elements 23 0fthe Song-Beverly Act. For example, the general public will often refer t0 a vehicle as a “lemon” 24 if there are any problems, concerns 0r defects, no matter how insubstantial those concerns may be. 25 Similarly, the general public may refer t0 something as a “lemon” if it is unsatisfactory t0 that 26 individual. These are not the elements for establishing a breach of the California Civil Code. 27 Section 352 of the California Evidence Code provides that: 28 2 GM’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, MENTION OR REFERENCE TO THE TERM “LEMON LAW,” AND THE WORD “LEMON”