Preview
11/20/2020
1 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
2 Rizza Gonzales (SBN 268118)
5200 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 345
3 Los Angeles, California 90045
Ph.: (310) 642-6900
4 Fax: (310) 642-6910
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
5 STEVEN ACHSTEIN
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11 STEVEN ACHSTEIN Case No. SCV0043589
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
14
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; et al.
15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN
Defendants.
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO
16 THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
17 COVERAGE
18
Complaint Filed: August 20, 2019
19 Trial Date: November 30, 2020
20
21
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN (“Plaintiff”), moves the
23
Court in limine for an order prohibiting Defendants from introducing or attempting to introduce,
24
either directly or indirectly, any testimony regarding the applicability of warranty coverage.
25
Plaintiff further moves the Court to instruct all parties and their counsel, as well as require
26
counsel to advise all witnesses of the following:
27
1. Prohibit conveying to the jury, either directly or indirectly, of the facts underlying
28
the Motion without first obtaining permission from the Court outside the presence of the jury;
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1
2. Prohibit any reference the filing of the Motion; and,
2
3. Instruct all witnesses to follow the same instructions.
3
This motion is based upon the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
4
Declaration of Rizza Gonzales attached hereto, the papers and pleadings on file in this action, and
5
upon such further matters that may be presented at the hearing.
6
7 Dated: November 19, 2020 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
8
9
10 _____________________
11 Rizza Gonzales
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
12 STEVEN ACHSTEIN
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 The underlying action involves Plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN (“Plaintiff”)’s claims
4 against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ( “Defendant” and/or “MBUSA”) arising under the Song-
5 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Song-Beverly Act”), Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq. and) for
6 violations of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff’s case involves the various and serious issues he
7 experienced with his vehicle and the subsequent repairs attempted by Defendant’s authorized
8 dealerships.
9 Plaintiff believes that Defendant may attempt to introduce expert testimony regarding
10 whether warranty coverage should have applied to the repairs made to the subject vehicle, despite
11 the fact that the applicability of warranty coverage is a question of law, and thus inappropriate
12 subject matter for expert opinion.
13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
14 Plaintiff leased the Subject Vehicle new on February 27, 2018. The total amount of
15 payments to be made by Plaintiff by the end of the four-year lease is $50,591.14. The value of the
16 Subject Vehicle at the time of the lease was $76,563.05. Plaintiff’s lease of the Subject Vehicle
17 came with MBUSA’s new vehicle warranty which is effective for four years (48 months) or
18 50,000 miles. Plaintiff’s vehicle is still covered by the warranty in terms of time and mileage as of
19 the last visit to MBUSA’s authorized repair facility, Mercedes-Benz of Rocklin on October 1,
20 2020, with a mileage of 45,829.
21 Plaintiff’s concerns with the vehicle began shortly after it was purchased and continue to
22 persist to the present. Plaintiff’s main concern with the Subject Vehicle involves a harsh
23 downshift which manifests as a clunk when shifting from 2nd to first after coming from a stop
24 when in Sport+ mode and using the distronic package for which Plaintiff paid extra. After months
25 of communication back and forth between the dealership, MBUSA, and MBUSA’s manufacturers,
26 Plaintiff was told that the vehicle is “operating as designed.” Plaintiff contends that this is a defect
27 with the vehicle and no vehicle would be “designed” to operate in this manner.
28 In addition to this issue, Plaintiff has experienced a number of persistent issues which
MBUSA has failed to adequately address including issues with the electronic system acting
2
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1 improperly, various noises within the vehicle including with the AC, steering wheel column, and
2 other issues which substantially impair the vehicle’s use, safety, or value. Plaintiff brought his
3 vehicle into an MBUSA authorized repair facility on at least fifteen occasions during the first three
4 years of driving the Subject Vehicle.
5 III. AFTER THE FACT QUESTIONING OF THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
6 COVERAGE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
7
A. Defendant and Their Expert Should Be Precluded From Offering Any Legal
8 Opinions or Testimony Regarding the Applicability of Warranty Coverage for
9 Repairs Covered Under the Warranty
10 Expert opinion is not admissible if it invades the province of a jury to decide a case.
11 (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1178.) An expert must not usurp the
12 function of a jury. (Id. at 1182-1183.)
13 Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude testimony or evidence from Defendant with regards to
14 whether warranty coverage should have applied for the repairs done to the vehicle. Plaintiff
15 believes Defendant will contend that the repair work done to address the problems with the harsh
16 shift were not covered by the warranty. Such testimony or evidence is speculative and improper.
17 Defendant provided warranty coverage for the repairs on the Subject Vehicle. Defendant
18 cannot now, after the fact, suggest that the warrant coverage provided should not have been
19 provided. Defendant’s expert testimony to that effect would contradict Defendant’s own internal
20 documents that warranty coverage is appropriate.
21 Further, whether a repair is subject to the warranty is a question of law. An expert is
22 prohibited from testifying to an opinion on a question of law. (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999)
23 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 117f8).
24 IV. CONCLUSION
25 Plaintiff requests that this motion be granted, and Defendants should be ordered not to
26 present expert testimony regarding the applicability of warranty coverage for the repairs performed
27 on Plaintiff’s vehicle.
28 ///
///
3
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1
2 Dated: November 19, 2020 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
3
4
5 _______________________
6 Rizza Gonzales
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 STEVEN ACHSTEIN
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1 DECLARATION OF RIZZA GONZALES
2 I, Rizza Gonzales, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an attorney
4 associated with Century Law Group LLP, attorneys of record in association with Law Offices of
5 Patrea Bullock for plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned matter.
6 2. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if sworn as a witness, I could
7 and would testify to them competently.
8 3. Should the parties reach a stipulation with regards to this motion prior to the
9 hearing, Plaintiff will withdraw this motion and advise the Court of same.
10 4. Failure to exclude opinions with regards to the applicability of warranty of coverage
11 would incurably prejudice Plaintiff as these opinions are inconsistent with the evidence and invade
12 the province of the jury.
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
14 foregoing is true and correct. Executed November 19, 2020, in Los Angeles, California.
15
16
17 _________________________
18 Rizza Gonzales
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
Rizza Gonzales (SBN 268118)
2 5200 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 345
Los Angeles, California 90045
3 Ph.: (310) 642-6900
Fax: (310) 642-6910
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
5 STEVEN ACHSTEIN
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF PLACER
9
10
STEVEN ACHSTEIN Case No. SCV0043589
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
13
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; et al. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
14 EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE
Defendants. APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
15 COVERAGE
16
17 Complaint Filed: August 20, 2019
18 Trial Date: November 30, 2020
19
20
21 Having considered the motion in limine filed by Plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN
22 (“Plaintiff”) to exclude testimony regarding the applicability of warranty coverage for the engine,
23 transmission, steering, suspension, emissions, and interior of the subject vehicle, IT IS HEREBY
24 ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
25 Defendants and their counsel shall advise all witnesses that:
26 1. Defendants, their attorneys, and witnesses are prohibited from introducing or
27 attempting to introduce, either directly or indirectly, any evidence or argument related to the
28 applicability of warranty coverage.
2. Defendants and their witnesses shall refrain from mentioning or referring to
6
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
1 evidence of the type described above in the presence or hearing of jurors or prospective jurors; and
2 3. Defendants’ attorneys shall immediately inform Defendant and their witnesses of
3 the terms and effect of the Court’s order, shall caution each of the Defendants’ witnesses to strictly
4 follow the same, and shall not make any reference to the fact that this motion has been filed.
5
6
7 Dated: ________________________ ______________________________
8 Superior Court Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY
COVERAGE
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
(1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
2
Re: Steven Achstein v. Mercedes -Benz USA., LLC; et al.
3 Case No.: SCV0043589
4
I, Kathy Ferrera, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am
5 over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 5200 W. Century
Blvd Suite 345 Los Angeles, CA 90045
6
7
On November 20, 2020, I served the following document(s) described as:
8 SEE ATTACHED LIST OF DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
9 on the interested parties in this action as follows:
10 JON D. UNIVERSAL
NEJLA NASSIRIAN
11 UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP
2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 290
12
Roseville, California 95661
13 eservice@uswlaw.com
juniversal@uswlaw.com
14
15
[ ] (BY MAIL)
16 On said date I placed such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United
States mail at Los Angeles, California.
17
[ ] I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
18
for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course
19 of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in
20 affidavit.
21
[X ] (BY E-MAIL)
22 On said date I e-mailed the above-referenced document to the attention of: Jon Universal, and
eservice@uswlaw.com.
23
24
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and that this
25 declaration/certificate is executed at Los Angeles, California on November 20, 2020
26
Kathy Ferrera
______________________
27
Kathy Ferrera
28
1
2 1. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NON-PARTY WITNESSES FROM
3 COURTROOM PRIOR TO THEIR TESTIMONY
4
2. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
5 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT REFERENCE TO ATTORNEY FEES
6
3. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
7 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY REGARDING
8
DEFENDANT’S PRESENT ABILITY TO REPAIR OR COST OF REPAIRING
THE VEHICLE
9
10 4. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF’S
11 FINANCIAL CONDITION
12
5. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
13 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT, OR
IMPLICATION THAT PLAINTIFF MISUSED, ABUSED, OR POORLY
14
MAINTAINED THE SUBJECT VEHICLE
15
16 6. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY
17 OF WARRANTY COVERAGE
18
7. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
19 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY OR REFERENCE TO
INCREASED COSTS OF VEHICLES
20
21 8. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESSES
22
FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
11/20/2020 1 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP 2 Rizza Gonzales (SBN 268118) 5200 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 345 3 Los Angeles, California 90045 Ph.: (310) 642-6900 4 Fax: (310) 642-6910 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 5 STEVEN ACHSTEIN 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 STEVEN ACHSTEIN Case No. SCV0043589 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 14 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; et al. 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN Defendants. LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO 16 THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY 17 COVERAGE 18 Complaint Filed: August 20, 2019 19 Trial Date: November 30, 2020 20 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN (“Plaintiff”), moves the 23 Court in limine for an order prohibiting Defendants from introducing or attempting to introduce, 24 either directly or indirectly, any testimony regarding the applicability of warranty coverage. 25 Plaintiff further moves the Court to instruct all parties and their counsel, as well as require 26 counsel to advise all witnesses of the following: 27 1. Prohibit conveying to the jury, either directly or indirectly, of the facts underlying 28 the Motion without first obtaining permission from the Court outside the presence of the jury; PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 2. Prohibit any reference the filing of the Motion; and, 2 3. Instruct all witnesses to follow the same instructions. 3 This motion is based upon the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the 4 Declaration of Rizza Gonzales attached hereto, the papers and pleadings on file in this action, and 5 upon such further matters that may be presented at the hearing. 6 7 Dated: November 19, 2020 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP 8 9 10 _____________________ 11 Rizza Gonzales Attorneys for Plaintiff, 12 STEVEN ACHSTEIN 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 The underlying action involves Plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN (“Plaintiff”)’s claims 4 against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ( “Defendant” and/or “MBUSA”) arising under the Song- 5 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Song-Beverly Act”), Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq. and) for 6 violations of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff’s case involves the various and serious issues he 7 experienced with his vehicle and the subsequent repairs attempted by Defendant’s authorized 8 dealerships. 9 Plaintiff believes that Defendant may attempt to introduce expert testimony regarding 10 whether warranty coverage should have applied to the repairs made to the subject vehicle, despite 11 the fact that the applicability of warranty coverage is a question of law, and thus inappropriate 12 subject matter for expert opinion. 13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 14 Plaintiff leased the Subject Vehicle new on February 27, 2018. The total amount of 15 payments to be made by Plaintiff by the end of the four-year lease is $50,591.14. The value of the 16 Subject Vehicle at the time of the lease was $76,563.05. Plaintiff’s lease of the Subject Vehicle 17 came with MBUSA’s new vehicle warranty which is effective for four years (48 months) or 18 50,000 miles. Plaintiff’s vehicle is still covered by the warranty in terms of time and mileage as of 19 the last visit to MBUSA’s authorized repair facility, Mercedes-Benz of Rocklin on October 1, 20 2020, with a mileage of 45,829. 21 Plaintiff’s concerns with the vehicle began shortly after it was purchased and continue to 22 persist to the present. Plaintiff’s main concern with the Subject Vehicle involves a harsh 23 downshift which manifests as a clunk when shifting from 2nd to first after coming from a stop 24 when in Sport+ mode and using the distronic package for which Plaintiff paid extra. After months 25 of communication back and forth between the dealership, MBUSA, and MBUSA’s manufacturers, 26 Plaintiff was told that the vehicle is “operating as designed.” Plaintiff contends that this is a defect 27 with the vehicle and no vehicle would be “designed” to operate in this manner. 28 In addition to this issue, Plaintiff has experienced a number of persistent issues which MBUSA has failed to adequately address including issues with the electronic system acting 2 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 improperly, various noises within the vehicle including with the AC, steering wheel column, and 2 other issues which substantially impair the vehicle’s use, safety, or value. Plaintiff brought his 3 vehicle into an MBUSA authorized repair facility on at least fifteen occasions during the first three 4 years of driving the Subject Vehicle. 5 III. AFTER THE FACT QUESTIONING OF THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY 6 COVERAGE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED 7 A. Defendant and Their Expert Should Be Precluded From Offering Any Legal 8 Opinions or Testimony Regarding the Applicability of Warranty Coverage for 9 Repairs Covered Under the Warranty 10 Expert opinion is not admissible if it invades the province of a jury to decide a case. 11 (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1178.) An expert must not usurp the 12 function of a jury. (Id. at 1182-1183.) 13 Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude testimony or evidence from Defendant with regards to 14 whether warranty coverage should have applied for the repairs done to the vehicle. Plaintiff 15 believes Defendant will contend that the repair work done to address the problems with the harsh 16 shift were not covered by the warranty. Such testimony or evidence is speculative and improper. 17 Defendant provided warranty coverage for the repairs on the Subject Vehicle. Defendant 18 cannot now, after the fact, suggest that the warrant coverage provided should not have been 19 provided. Defendant’s expert testimony to that effect would contradict Defendant’s own internal 20 documents that warranty coverage is appropriate. 21 Further, whether a repair is subject to the warranty is a question of law. An expert is 22 prohibited from testifying to an opinion on a question of law. (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 23 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 117f8). 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 Plaintiff requests that this motion be granted, and Defendants should be ordered not to 26 present expert testimony regarding the applicability of warranty coverage for the repairs performed 27 on Plaintiff’s vehicle. 28 /// /// 3 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 2 Dated: November 19, 2020 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP 3 4 5 _______________________ 6 Rizza Gonzales Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 STEVEN ACHSTEIN 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 DECLARATION OF RIZZA GONZALES 2 I, Rizza Gonzales, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an attorney 4 associated with Century Law Group LLP, attorneys of record in association with Law Offices of 5 Patrea Bullock for plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned matter. 6 2. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if sworn as a witness, I could 7 and would testify to them competently. 8 3. Should the parties reach a stipulation with regards to this motion prior to the 9 hearing, Plaintiff will withdraw this motion and advise the Court of same. 10 4. Failure to exclude opinions with regards to the applicability of warranty of coverage 11 would incurably prejudice Plaintiff as these opinions are inconsistent with the evidence and invade 12 the province of the jury. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 14 foregoing is true and correct. Executed November 19, 2020, in Los Angeles, California. 15 16 17 _________________________ 18 Rizza Gonzales 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP Rizza Gonzales (SBN 268118) 2 5200 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 345 Los Angeles, California 90045 3 Ph.: (310) 642-6900 Fax: (310) 642-6910 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 5 STEVEN ACHSTEIN 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF PLACER 9 10 STEVEN ACHSTEIN Case No. SCV0043589 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; et al. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 14 EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE Defendants. APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY 15 COVERAGE 16 17 Complaint Filed: August 20, 2019 18 Trial Date: November 30, 2020 19 20 21 Having considered the motion in limine filed by Plaintiff STEVEN ACHSTEIN 22 (“Plaintiff”) to exclude testimony regarding the applicability of warranty coverage for the engine, 23 transmission, steering, suspension, emissions, and interior of the subject vehicle, IT IS HEREBY 24 ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 25 Defendants and their counsel shall advise all witnesses that: 26 1. Defendants, their attorneys, and witnesses are prohibited from introducing or 27 attempting to introduce, either directly or indirectly, any evidence or argument related to the 28 applicability of warranty coverage. 2. Defendants and their witnesses shall refrain from mentioning or referring to 6 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 1 evidence of the type described above in the presence or hearing of jurors or prospective jurors; and 2 3. Defendants’ attorneys shall immediately inform Defendant and their witnesses of 3 the terms and effect of the Court’s order, shall caution each of the Defendants’ witnesses to strictly 4 follow the same, and shall not make any reference to the fact that this motion has been filed. 5 6 7 Dated: ________________________ ______________________________ 8 Superior Court Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 PLAINTIFF’S MIL NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF WARRANTY COVERAGE -1- PROOF OF SERVICE 1 (1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) 2 Re: Steven Achstein v. Mercedes -Benz USA., LLC; et al. 3 Case No.: SCV0043589 4 I, Kathy Ferrera, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am 5 over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 5200 W. Century Blvd Suite 345 Los Angeles, CA 90045 6 7 On November 20, 2020, I served the following document(s) described as: 8 SEE ATTACHED LIST OF DOCUMENTS ATTACHED 9 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 10 JON D. UNIVERSAL NEJLA NASSIRIAN 11 UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 290 12 Roseville, California 95661 13 eservice@uswlaw.com juniversal@uswlaw.com 14 15 [ ] (BY MAIL) 16 On said date I placed such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. 17 [ ] I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence 18 for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course 19 of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in 20 affidavit. 21 [X ] (BY E-MAIL) 22 On said date I e-mailed the above-referenced document to the attention of: Jon Universal, and eservice@uswlaw.com. 23 24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and that this 25 declaration/certificate is executed at Los Angeles, California on November 20, 2020 26 Kathy Ferrera ______________________ 27 Kathy Ferrera 28 1 2 1. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NON-PARTY WITNESSES FROM 3 COURTROOM PRIOR TO THEIR TESTIMONY 4 2. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND 5 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT REFERENCE TO ATTORNEY FEES 6 3. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND 7 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY REGARDING 8 DEFENDANT’S PRESENT ABILITY TO REPAIR OR COST OF REPAIRING THE VEHICLE 9 10 4. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF’S 11 FINANCIAL CONDITION 12 5. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND 13 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT, OR IMPLICATION THAT PLAINTIFF MISUSED, ABUSED, OR POORLY 14 MAINTAINED THE SUBJECT VEHICLE 15 16 6. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY 17 OF WARRANTY COVERAGE 18 7. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND 19 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY OR REFERENCE TO INCREASED COSTS OF VEHICLES 20 21 8. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESSES 22 FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL 23 24 25 26 27 28