Preview
Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294)
Kainoa Aliviado (Bar No. 308382)
THETA LAW FIRM, LLP
15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270
Lawndale, CA 90260
Telephone: (424) 297-3103
Facsimile: (424) 286-2244
Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
10 ANNA P. KING, Case No.: S-CV-0038637
Sweet! See”
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
ee” Nome” Se!
AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19,
12 Vs. TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR
STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND
Seerer” Sewer” Nese”
13 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED
California Corporation, and DOES 1 SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY
14 through 10, inclusive, THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019;
Semen”
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL
15 Defendants. TAHSILDOOST
Nee? Nee” Seer” Snare”
16 Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016
Trial Date: July 1,2019
17
18
Name
19 TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20 Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) requests an in limine order precluding
21 evidence of or statements relating to a second vehicle inspection conducted solely by Plaintiff's
22 expert Thomas Lepper on May 28, 2019.
23 H/
24 Hil
25 Hl
26 MI
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MIL19
SECONDVI.DOCX 1
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
1. PLAINTIFF AND HER EXPERT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM
PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SECOND
VEHICLE INSPECTION AS THE CONDITIONS TESTED FOR AT THAT
INSPECTION WERE NEVER PRESENTED AS COMPLAINTS AND NEVER
PRESENTED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN THE DISCOVERY PERIOD.
In this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action, 2010 Hyundai Tucson owner Anna
DD
King alleged that when she put the vehicle into reverse, the backup camera would intermittently
“nN
present issues. Specifically she testified that the camera would either (1) have a snowy screen or
ao
a screen with static, (2)just show the HMA logo, or (3) have a blank black screen. Specifically,
\o
the Plaintiff testified that:
11 Q. Okay. Did you ever complain to aHyundai dealership that ifyou put the vehicle into
12 reverse, instead of showing the backup camera, itshowed the Hyundai logo?
13 A. Itdid that. It did that. Sorry, I should say itdid the Hyundai logo, itshowed that, but
14 primarily itwas the fuzzy screen.
15 Q. And when you said "that," you were pointing to Exhibit E-4?
16 A. The blank screen, yes.
17 Q. So you're saying the problems it'shad has been the blank screen, the fuzzy screen,
18 which means the static --
19 A. Right.
20 Q. --and the Hyundai logo showing.
21 A. Not as much as the fuzzy screen.
22 Q. Weil, have you ever seen the Hyundai logo show up instead of the rear backup
23 camera?
24 A. Yes.
25 (Plaintiff Deposition Transcript, 111:22 — 112:15, Exhibit A to Tahsildoost Decl.)
26 HII
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MILI9
SECONDVIL.DOCX 2
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
Later, the Plaintiff testified that during the period of time before she took the vehicle in to the
dealership, the issue she was having was the same every time. Specifically, she testified:
Q. Now, during this period, this one month before you took itin,the problem was the
same every time; right? You would put itin reverse, and you would see a fuzzy screen.
A. Right.
(Plaintiff Deposition Transcript, 97:13-17.)
These were the backup camera concerns that Plaintiff presented with within the warranty period
(there were two visits made after the warranty expired), and the concern could never be
duplicated and no problem was ever found. Plaintiff then testified at her deposition that just two
10 weeks before the deposition, her entire AVN Unit went blank. She said that this had not
1] happened before and that itoccurred while she was driving and not while she was putting the
12 vehicle in reverse. She testified that:
13 Q. Okay. And you said this happened — the picture in E-4 was taken a couple of weeks
14 ago?
15 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. So it was even happening during winter months as well?
17 A. Well, and this was --this hasn't — where everything istotally blank, that's not
18 happened before.
19 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any issues shifting the vehicle into drive or into any gear?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Where were you when you took the picture in Exhibit E-4?
22 A. Ithink I was driving home from work. At a stop sign or stoplight.
23 Q. Okay, and suddenly this came on?
24 A. Uh-huh, for no reason.
25 Q. On that drive, had you put the car into reverse at all?
26 A. Idon't know.
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MILI9
SECONDVLDOCX 3
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
Q. Had you backed up atany point?
A. I'm sure Idid at some point but --
Q. Okay. Well, if you did at some point --
A. But ithappened --sorry.
Q. Did this happen after that? Did -- well, let me rephrase that. Did the backup camera
work on that drive?
A. As Iwas driving home, I backed out of my parking stall at work, and this happened
probably ten miles from there, and it-- at that point, I would have never put itin reverse. Iwas
driving home.
10 Q. Okay. So ithad nothing to do with being in reverse when this problem occurred?
11 A. Correct.
12 (Plaintiff Deposition Transcript, 145:5 — 146:14.)
13
14 Now, Plaintiff is trying to present, through a second vehicle inspection that Defendant
15 and itsexpert were not allowed to participate in and done under unknown conditions, with
16 unknown equipment, a concern that was never previously reported altogether. At the second
17 inspection apreloaded iPhone with unknown software and programs was plugged into the AVN
18 system and then the vehicle was quickly put into reverse, wherein the AVN system continued to
19 load the information from the iPhone and did not switch to the backup camera, according to
20 Plaintiff's expert. Plaintiff never complained that plugging in her phone caused the AVN to
21 continuously load and never switch to a backup camera. Not only is this a condition that was
22 never discussed by Plaintiff as being an issue or a concern during her deposition, but this also
23 was not an issue that was ever presented to any Hyundai facility as being a concern. This was
24 not a fuzzy backup camera screen, orjust a logo screen, and this was not an AVN that was
25 completely blank as described by Plaintiff inher deposition. Plaintiff, through her expert, is
26 trying to concoct a concern where there was none and by Plaintiff's own admissions in her
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MIL19
SECONDVLDOCX 4
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
deposition — such a circumstance did not occur to her (and certainly not under the conditions
created by Plaintiff's expert). The Song-Beverly Act requires an unreasonable number of repair
“attempts” (plural) as a prerequisite to relief. Where the vehicle was not ever presented even
once for a complaint under the conditions that Plaintiff's expert created, diagnosis on the part of
the dealership and any repair attempts are impossible.
Therefore, given that the conditions and parameters created by Plaintiffs expert to
present a “concern” was never something actually ever experienced by Plaintiff or reported by
Plaintiff, the entire second vehicle inspection and the evidence derived therefrom isentirely
irrelevant and improper.
10 2. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR
11 STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION AS IT
12 IS MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE.
13 The issue in this case is whether Plaintiff's vehicle had a defect or defects covered by
14 warranty that substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety to a reasonable buyer in
15 Plaintiff's situation and whether HMA and its authorized repair facilities failed to repair
16 Plaintiff's vehicle to match the written warranty after areasonable number of opportunities to do
17 so. How could the vehicle’s use, value, and safety have been substantially impaired by the
18 conditions created in Plaintiffs expert’s second vehicle inspection ifthe Plaintiff had never
19 complained about the issue created by Plaintiff’s expert? How could HMA and itsauthorized
20 repair facilities have had a reasonable number of opportunities to repair Plaintiffs vehicle, if
21 they were never presented with the concern Plaintiff's expert created during the second vehicle
22 inspection? The answer to each of these questions is that itcould not have. The sole reason for
23 the presentation of the second vehicle inspection is to prejudice Defendant by presenting a
24 complaint that was never actually complained about by Plaintiff to make the jury feel there is
25 something wrong with the vehicle right now. That is not a question that isposed to the jury and
26 entirely inappropriate.
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MIL19
SECONDVI.DOCX 5
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
Additionally, given that Plaintiff did not allow for Defendant to participate in the second
inspection, it iscompletely impossible to tell what conditions the inspection was done under,
what iPhone was used, and what accessories were employed. Since Defendant only learned of
the inspection after the discovery cut off, Defendant is also prevented from obtaining the
materials used for the inspection, including the iPhone that was plugged into the vehicle atthe
time of the testing.
NN
Accordingly, evidence or statements relating to the second vehicle inspection should be
excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because itis highly prejudicial to defendant and
CO
poses littleto no probative value. Evidence carries a risk of “undue” prejudice if ittends to
oO
evoke an emotional bias against a party. (People v.Karis (1988) 43 Cal.3d 612, 638; Ajaxo, Inc.
11 v. E*TRADE Group, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4" 21, 45.) This is especially true ifthe evidence
12 has very little
to do with the actual issues inthe case. (Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4"
13 573, 597.) Here, evidence of the second vehicle inspection does not have anything do with the
14 issues in thiscase and should be excluded.
15 3. CONCLUSION.
16 For the foregoing reasons, HMA requests an order precluding Plaintiff, her witnesses,
17 experts, and her counsel from making any statements or offering any evidence with respect to the
18 second vehicle inspection that was conducted by Plaintiff's expert on May 28, 2019.
19 Dated: June 21, 2019
20 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP
21
22
le
SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
23 Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America
24
25
26
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MIL19
SECONDVIL.DOCX 6
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
I,Sohey! Tahsildoost, declare as follows:
1, I am a duly licensed California attorney, a partner at the Theta Law Firm, LLP
counsel for the defendants. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and ifcalled as a
witness I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. I sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding this motion. At the
DD
time of preparing this motion, Plaintiff's counsel had not responded. If counsel stipulates to this
nN
motion, itwill be withdrawn.
oo
3. Defendant HMA seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering, referring to or
\o
otherwise mentioning evidence of or statements about a second vehicle inspection conducted
solely by Plaintiffs expert Thomas Lepper on May 28, 2019 as irrelevant, prejudicial and
11
inadmissible.
12
4, Ifthe Court allows Plaintiff and her witnesses to introduce any evidence,
13
statements, or reference to the second vehicle inspection conducted solely by Plaintiff's expert
14
Thomas Lepper on May 28, 2019, such evidence will significantly prejudice defendant since
15
such evidence is irrelevant, extremely prejudicial, and will be used to confuse and inflame the
16
jury against the defendant.
17
5. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Plaintiff's deposition is
18
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 21, 2019 at Lawndale, California.
21
22 U2 —
23 SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, Declarant
24
25
26
27 MAKING,
ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO
FILE\MILI9
SECONDVI.DOCX 7
28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFEF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS
LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
Page 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
ANNA P. KING,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO.: SCV0038637
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a
California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
10
11
12
Deposition of
13 ANNA P. KING
Sacramento, California
14 Thursday, December 28, 2017
Volume I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Reported by:
23 CAROLYN McREYNOLDS
CSR No. 6675, RPR
24 Job No. 2775632
25 PAGES 1 -
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Page 2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WN
COUNTY OF PLACER
PB
ANNA P. KING,
Plaintif€,
vs. CASE NO.: SCV0038637
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a
California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
11
12
13
14 Deposition of ANNA P. KING, taken on behalf
of the Defendants, at 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 240,
15 Sacramento, California, beginning at 11:43 a.m.,
and ending at 4:40 p.m., on Thursday, December 28,
16 2017, before, Carolyn McReynolds, Certified
Shorthand Reporter No. 6675.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Page 3
APPEARANCES :
For the Plaintiff:
THE ALTMAN GROUP
BY: CHRISTOPHER J. URNER, Esq.
6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 980
Los Angeles, California 90048
(323) 653-5581
c.urner@altmanlawgroup.net
10
11 For the Defendants:
12 THETA LAW FIRM
13 BY: SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, Esq.
14 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 270
15 Lawndale, California 90260
16 (424) 297-3103
17 st@thetafirm.com
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Page 97
you drive the car over the course of 20 days about,
you know, every day, how many times would it happen
on average?
A. I don't know. I couldn't even give you a
guess.
Is it more than half the time?
A. Probably not.
Q. So more than ten percent of the time?
A. I would think so, yes.
10 Q. Okay. Somewhere between ten and
11 fifty percent of the time?
12 A. Yes.
13
14
15
16 and you would see a fuzz
Ll] A. Right.
18 Q. Now, when you have put it into reverse,
19 did the fuzzy screen ever change, meaning did it
20 ever go from the fuzzy screen to a backup camera
21 display?
22 A. No, not at the same time, no.
23 Q. If you put the car into park and then put
24 it back into reverse, would the --
25 A. No. Sorry.
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Page 111
it, they couldn't do anything.
Q. Okay. So you don't have any recollection
of them saying to you "We duplicated this issue"?
A. No.
Q. And is it instead your recollection that
they never told you that?
A. No, I wouldn't say that.
Q. So basically you don't remember one way or
the other?
10 A. Right .
11 Q. Okay. Earlier you had said that you
12 thought this language about "if the car is put into
13 reverse quickly, that the AVN unit will only
14 display the Hyundai logo," you said that that was
15 your complaint. |
16 Are you saying that at some point you
17 complained that if you put it into reverse quickly,
18 the problem would occur?
19 A. It occurred all the time, but I don't know
20 about the Hyundai logo because that usually wasn't
21 the issue. It was the fuzzy screen.
showed the Hyunda
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
13
15
16 Q. Okay. All right. Then do you recall
17 whether you ever complained to a Hyundai dealer
18 that the problem is specifically occurring when the
19 vehicle is put into reverse quickly?
20 A. Well, it happened at all times; so I can
21 imagine I would have said that.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know if you ever told them
23 that it can take -- it can occur even after a
24 longer period of time when you put the vehicle into
25 reverse?
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Page 146
» OF
let me rephrase
Did the Bb ‘kK oh that drive?
UR backed out of my
10
it
12
a3 in reve
14
15 Q. Do you recall on this drive whether the
16 backup camera worked?
17 A. Yes. When I backed out, it worked.
18 (Reporter requested a break.)
19 (Recess taken.)
20 BY MR. TAHSTILDOOST:
21 Q. Okay. So you said that this was the first
22 time that you saw the air conditioning display not
23 function; right?
24 A. Yes. That was new.
25 Q. But you've seen a blank screen before;
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Page 192
I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
HF
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby
NY
certify:
WY
That the foregoing proceedings were taken before
FP
me at the time and place herein set forth; that any
oO
witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to
Nn
testifying, were placed under oath; that a record
of the proceedings was made by me using machine
shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my
10 direction; that the foregoing transcript is a true
11 record of the testimony given.
12 Further, that if the foregoing pertains to the
13 original transcript of a deposition in a Federal
14 Case, before completion of the proceedings, review
15 of the transcript [ ] was [ ] was not requested.
16 I further certify I am neither financially
17 interested in the action nor a relative or employee
18 of any attorney or party to this action.
19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed
20 my name.
21
22 Dated:
23
24 CAROLYN L. MCREYNOLDS
CSR No. 6675, RPR
25
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Preview
Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) Kainoa Aliviado (Bar No. 308382) THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER 10 ANNA P. KING, Case No.: S-CV-0038637 Sweet! See” 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR ee” Nome” Se! AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, 12 Vs. TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND Seerer” Sewer” Nese” 13 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED California Corporation, and DOES 1 SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY 14 through 10, inclusive, THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; Semen” DECLARATION OF SOHEYL 15 Defendants. TAHSILDOOST Nee? Nee” Seer” Snare” 16 Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 Trial Date: July 1,2019 17 18 Name 19 TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 20 Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) requests an in limine order precluding 21 evidence of or statements relating to a second vehicle inspection conducted solely by Plaintiff's 22 expert Thomas Lepper on May 28, 2019. 23 H/ 24 Hil 25 Hl 26 MI 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MIL19 SECONDVI.DOCX 1 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST 1. PLAINTIFF AND HER EXPERT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION AS THE CONDITIONS TESTED FOR AT THAT INSPECTION WERE NEVER PRESENTED AS COMPLAINTS AND NEVER PRESENTED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN THE DISCOVERY PERIOD. In this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action, 2010 Hyundai Tucson owner Anna DD King alleged that when she put the vehicle into reverse, the backup camera would intermittently “nN present issues. Specifically she testified that the camera would either (1) have a snowy screen or ao a screen with static, (2)just show the HMA logo, or (3) have a blank black screen. Specifically, \o the Plaintiff testified that: 11 Q. Okay. Did you ever complain to aHyundai dealership that ifyou put the vehicle into 12 reverse, instead of showing the backup camera, itshowed the Hyundai logo? 13 A. Itdid that. It did that. Sorry, I should say itdid the Hyundai logo, itshowed that, but 14 primarily itwas the fuzzy screen. 15 Q. And when you said "that," you were pointing to Exhibit E-4? 16 A. The blank screen, yes. 17 Q. So you're saying the problems it'shad has been the blank screen, the fuzzy screen, 18 which means the static -- 19 A. Right. 20 Q. --and the Hyundai logo showing. 21 A. Not as much as the fuzzy screen. 22 Q. Weil, have you ever seen the Hyundai logo show up instead of the rear backup 23 camera? 24 A. Yes. 25 (Plaintiff Deposition Transcript, 111:22 — 112:15, Exhibit A to Tahsildoost Decl.) 26 HII 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MILI9 SECONDVIL.DOCX 2 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Later, the Plaintiff testified that during the period of time before she took the vehicle in to the dealership, the issue she was having was the same every time. Specifically, she testified: Q. Now, during this period, this one month before you took itin,the problem was the same every time; right? You would put itin reverse, and you would see a fuzzy screen. A. Right. (Plaintiff Deposition Transcript, 97:13-17.) These were the backup camera concerns that Plaintiff presented with within the warranty period (there were two visits made after the warranty expired), and the concern could never be duplicated and no problem was ever found. Plaintiff then testified at her deposition that just two 10 weeks before the deposition, her entire AVN Unit went blank. She said that this had not 1] happened before and that itoccurred while she was driving and not while she was putting the 12 vehicle in reverse. She testified that: 13 Q. Okay. And you said this happened — the picture in E-4 was taken a couple of weeks 14 ago? 15 A. Uh-huh. 16 Q. So it was even happening during winter months as well? 17 A. Well, and this was --this hasn't — where everything istotally blank, that's not 18 happened before. 19 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any issues shifting the vehicle into drive or into any gear? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Where were you when you took the picture in Exhibit E-4? 22 A. Ithink I was driving home from work. At a stop sign or stoplight. 23 Q. Okay, and suddenly this came on? 24 A. Uh-huh, for no reason. 25 Q. On that drive, had you put the car into reverse at all? 26 A. Idon't know. 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MILI9 SECONDVLDOCX 3 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Q. Had you backed up atany point? A. I'm sure Idid at some point but -- Q. Okay. Well, if you did at some point -- A. But ithappened --sorry. Q. Did this happen after that? Did -- well, let me rephrase that. Did the backup camera work on that drive? A. As Iwas driving home, I backed out of my parking stall at work, and this happened probably ten miles from there, and it-- at that point, I would have never put itin reverse. Iwas driving home. 10 Q. Okay. So ithad nothing to do with being in reverse when this problem occurred? 11 A. Correct. 12 (Plaintiff Deposition Transcript, 145:5 — 146:14.) 13 14 Now, Plaintiff is trying to present, through a second vehicle inspection that Defendant 15 and itsexpert were not allowed to participate in and done under unknown conditions, with 16 unknown equipment, a concern that was never previously reported altogether. At the second 17 inspection apreloaded iPhone with unknown software and programs was plugged into the AVN 18 system and then the vehicle was quickly put into reverse, wherein the AVN system continued to 19 load the information from the iPhone and did not switch to the backup camera, according to 20 Plaintiff's expert. Plaintiff never complained that plugging in her phone caused the AVN to 21 continuously load and never switch to a backup camera. Not only is this a condition that was 22 never discussed by Plaintiff as being an issue or a concern during her deposition, but this also 23 was not an issue that was ever presented to any Hyundai facility as being a concern. This was 24 not a fuzzy backup camera screen, orjust a logo screen, and this was not an AVN that was 25 completely blank as described by Plaintiff inher deposition. Plaintiff, through her expert, is 26 trying to concoct a concern where there was none and by Plaintiff's own admissions in her 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MIL19 SECONDVLDOCX 4 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST deposition — such a circumstance did not occur to her (and certainly not under the conditions created by Plaintiff's expert). The Song-Beverly Act requires an unreasonable number of repair “attempts” (plural) as a prerequisite to relief. Where the vehicle was not ever presented even once for a complaint under the conditions that Plaintiff's expert created, diagnosis on the part of the dealership and any repair attempts are impossible. Therefore, given that the conditions and parameters created by Plaintiffs expert to present a “concern” was never something actually ever experienced by Plaintiff or reported by Plaintiff, the entire second vehicle inspection and the evidence derived therefrom isentirely irrelevant and improper. 10 2. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR 11 STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION AS IT 12 IS MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE. 13 The issue in this case is whether Plaintiff's vehicle had a defect or defects covered by 14 warranty that substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety to a reasonable buyer in 15 Plaintiff's situation and whether HMA and its authorized repair facilities failed to repair 16 Plaintiff's vehicle to match the written warranty after areasonable number of opportunities to do 17 so. How could the vehicle’s use, value, and safety have been substantially impaired by the 18 conditions created in Plaintiffs expert’s second vehicle inspection ifthe Plaintiff had never 19 complained about the issue created by Plaintiff’s expert? How could HMA and itsauthorized 20 repair facilities have had a reasonable number of opportunities to repair Plaintiffs vehicle, if 21 they were never presented with the concern Plaintiff's expert created during the second vehicle 22 inspection? The answer to each of these questions is that itcould not have. The sole reason for 23 the presentation of the second vehicle inspection is to prejudice Defendant by presenting a 24 complaint that was never actually complained about by Plaintiff to make the jury feel there is 25 something wrong with the vehicle right now. That is not a question that isposed to the jury and 26 entirely inappropriate. 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MIL19 SECONDVI.DOCX 5 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Additionally, given that Plaintiff did not allow for Defendant to participate in the second inspection, it iscompletely impossible to tell what conditions the inspection was done under, what iPhone was used, and what accessories were employed. Since Defendant only learned of the inspection after the discovery cut off, Defendant is also prevented from obtaining the materials used for the inspection, including the iPhone that was plugged into the vehicle atthe time of the testing. NN Accordingly, evidence or statements relating to the second vehicle inspection should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because itis highly prejudicial to defendant and CO poses littleto no probative value. Evidence carries a risk of “undue” prejudice if ittends to oO evoke an emotional bias against a party. (People v.Karis (1988) 43 Cal.3d 612, 638; Ajaxo, Inc. 11 v. E*TRADE Group, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4" 21, 45.) This is especially true ifthe evidence 12 has very little to do with the actual issues inthe case. (Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4" 13 573, 597.) Here, evidence of the second vehicle inspection does not have anything do with the 14 issues in thiscase and should be excluded. 15 3. CONCLUSION. 16 For the foregoing reasons, HMA requests an order precluding Plaintiff, her witnesses, 17 experts, and her counsel from making any statements or offering any evidence with respect to the 18 second vehicle inspection that was conducted by Plaintiff's expert on May 28, 2019. 19 Dated: June 21, 2019 20 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP 21 22 le SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST 23 Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America 24 25 26 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MIL19 SECONDVIL.DOCX 6 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST I,Sohey! Tahsildoost, declare as follows: 1, I am a duly licensed California attorney, a partner at the Theta Law Firm, LLP counsel for the defendants. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and ifcalled as a witness I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding this motion. At the DD time of preparing this motion, Plaintiff's counsel had not responded. If counsel stipulates to this nN motion, itwill be withdrawn. oo 3. Defendant HMA seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering, referring to or \o otherwise mentioning evidence of or statements about a second vehicle inspection conducted solely by Plaintiffs expert Thomas Lepper on May 28, 2019 as irrelevant, prejudicial and 11 inadmissible. 12 4, Ifthe Court allows Plaintiff and her witnesses to introduce any evidence, 13 statements, or reference to the second vehicle inspection conducted solely by Plaintiff's expert 14 Thomas Lepper on May 28, 2019, such evidence will significantly prejudice defendant since 15 such evidence is irrelevant, extremely prejudicial, and will be used to confuse and inflame the 16 jury against the defendant. 17 5. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Plaintiff's deposition is 18 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 21, 2019 at Lawndale, California. 21 22 U2 — 23 SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, Declarant 24 25 26 27 MAKING, ANNA\TRIAL\MILS\TO FILE\MILI9 SECONDVI.DOCX 7 28 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19, TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR STATEMENTS RELATING TO A SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION CONDUCTED SOLELY BY PLAINTIFEF’S EXPERT BY THOMAS LEPPER ON MAY 28, 2019; DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Page 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER ANNA P. KING, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO.: SCV0038637 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 10 11 12 Deposition of 13 ANNA P. KING Sacramento, California 14 Thursday, December 28, 2017 Volume I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Reported by: 23 CAROLYN McREYNOLDS CSR No. 6675, RPR 24 Job No. 2775632 25 PAGES 1 - Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 Page 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WN COUNTY OF PLACER PB ANNA P. KING, Plaintif€, vs. CASE NO.: SCV0038637 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 11 12 13 14 Deposition of ANNA P. KING, taken on behalf of the Defendants, at 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 240, 15 Sacramento, California, beginning at 11:43 a.m., and ending at 4:40 p.m., on Thursday, December 28, 16 2017, before, Carolyn McReynolds, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 6675. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 Page 3 APPEARANCES : For the Plaintiff: THE ALTMAN GROUP BY: CHRISTOPHER J. URNER, Esq. 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 980 Los Angeles, California 90048 (323) 653-5581 c.urner@altmanlawgroup.net 10 11 For the Defendants: 12 THETA LAW FIRM 13 BY: SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST, Esq. 14 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 270 15 Lawndale, California 90260 16 (424) 297-3103 17 st@thetafirm.com 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 Page 97 you drive the car over the course of 20 days about, you know, every day, how many times would it happen on average? A. I don't know. I couldn't even give you a guess. Is it more than half the time? A. Probably not. Q. So more than ten percent of the time? A. I would think so, yes. 10 Q. Okay. Somewhere between ten and 11 fifty percent of the time? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 15 16 and you would see a fuzz Ll] A. Right. 18 Q. Now, when you have put it into reverse, 19 did the fuzzy screen ever change, meaning did it 20 ever go from the fuzzy screen to a backup camera 21 display? 22 A. No, not at the same time, no. 23 Q. If you put the car into park and then put 24 it back into reverse, would the -- 25 A. No. Sorry. Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 Page 111 it, they couldn't do anything. Q. Okay. So you don't have any recollection of them saying to you "We duplicated this issue"? A. No. Q. And is it instead your recollection that they never told you that? A. No, I wouldn't say that. Q. So basically you don't remember one way or the other? 10 A. Right . 11 Q. Okay. Earlier you had said that you 12 thought this language about "if the car is put into 13 reverse quickly, that the AVN unit will only 14 display the Hyundai logo," you said that that was 15 your complaint. | 16 Are you saying that at some point you 17 complained that if you put it into reverse quickly, 18 the problem would occur? 19 A. It occurred all the time, but I don't know 20 about the Hyundai logo because that usually wasn't 21 the issue. It was the fuzzy screen. showed the Hyunda Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 13 15 16 Q. Okay. All right. Then do you recall 17 whether you ever complained to a Hyundai dealer 18 that the problem is specifically occurring when the 19 vehicle is put into reverse quickly? 20 A. Well, it happened at all times; so I can 21 imagine I would have said that. 22 Q. Okay. Do you know if you ever told them 23 that it can take -- it can occur even after a 24 longer period of time when you put the vehicle into 25 reverse? Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 Page 146 » OF let me rephrase Did the Bb ‘kK oh that drive? UR backed out of my 10 it 12 a3 in reve 14 15 Q. Do you recall on this drive whether the 16 backup camera worked? 17 A. Yes. When I backed out, it worked. 18 (Reporter requested a break.) 19 (Recess taken.) 20 BY MR. TAHSTILDOOST: 21 Q. Okay. So you said that this was the first 22 time that you saw the air conditioning display not 23 function; right? 24 A. Yes. That was new. 25 Q. But you've seen a blank screen before; Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040 Page 192 I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand HF Reporter of the State of California, do hereby NY certify: WY That the foregoing proceedings were taken before FP me at the time and place herein set forth; that any oO witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to Nn testifying, were placed under oath; that a record of the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my 10 direction; that the foregoing transcript is a true 11 record of the testimony given. 12 Further, that if the foregoing pertains to the 13 original transcript of a deposition in a Federal 14 Case, before completion of the proceedings, review 15 of the transcript [ ] was [ ] was not requested. 16 I further certify I am neither financially 17 interested in the action nor a relative or employee 18 of any attorney or party to this action. 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed 20 my name. 21 22 Dated: 23 24 CAROLYN L. MCREYNOLDS CSR No. 6675, RPR 25 Veritext Legal Solutions 800-567-8658 973-410-4040