1 Negatu Molla (Bar No. 006254)
David W. Williams (Bar No. 022764)
2 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Suite 1600, Phoenix Plaza
3 2901 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
4 (602) 643-2300
5
Attorneys for Defendant Workhorse Custom Chassis
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PHOENIX
8 9
LANE SENNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. CV04 0161 PHX ROS
DEFENDANT WORKHORSE CUSTOM
10
11
12
FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS;
INC.,
13 14 15
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DEFENDANT WORKHORSE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM AT TRIAL THAT DEALER-INSTALLED ACCESSORIES ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE WORKHORSE WARRANTY
(Assigned to Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)
CHASSIS, LLC'S RESPONSE TO
16
17
18
Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC ("Workhorse") hereby responds to
19 Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude Workhorse from claiming that after-market
20 components are not covered by Workhorse's limited warranty. Workhorse's
21 position is more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum of points and
22 authority.
23
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
24 Plaintiff's motion in limine seeks a ruling from the Court that any after-market
25 component (not approved by Workhorse and not manufactured by Workhorse) is
26 magically covered under Workhorse's limited warranty. Plaintiff's motion is flawed
27
in that it fails to identify any specific after-market component that she intends to
?R claim is somehow covered under Workhorse's limited warranty. Instead, Plaintiff
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS
1 Document 217
::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1
Filed 09/15/2006
Page 1 of 4
1
simply seeks a broad-brushed ruling from the Court that any part of the motor home
2 3
that is allegedly defective is somehow now covered under Workhorse's limited
warranty since Defendant Fleetwood has been dismissed from the case.
4
5
Workhorse has always contended that it is responsible only for those repairs that
are shown in its Warranty Claims history-which reflects payments made to
Workhorse authorized service facilities for work performed pursuant to the limited
warranty. See Warranty Claims History, attached as Exhibit A.
6
7
8 9
As support for her motion, Plaintiff cites to a section of the Workhorse Policy
and Procedures Manual as support for her argument that Workhorse always covers
10
11
after-market components under its limited warranty. However, the language
referred to in the Policy Manual notes "WCC accessories." Plaintiff has not
identified any Workhorse approved after-market components that it has indicated
12
13 14 15 16
17
are covered under the limited warranty. To be considered "WCC accessories," the
after-market components must be approved by Workhorse. In this case,
Workhorse has not given approval for any after-market component to used address
any repair situation.
Fairness dictates that Workhorse should not be responsible for another
18 19
manufacturer's part or components.
For instance, if Plaintiff were to claim the
generator on the subject motor home is defective, Workhorse would not be
20
21
responsible for that component. Workhorse did not manufacture the generator and
it did not authorize its installation on the motor home. These decisions would have
been made by another manufacturer.
22
23 24 25 26
27
?R
Therefore, because Plaintiff has not identified any specific after-market
components in her motion and it is prejudicial and unfair for Workhorse to be
responsible for another manufacturer's defective component, Workhorse requests
that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion in limine.
::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS
2 Document 217
Filed 09/15/2006
Page 2 of 4
1
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of September, 2006.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
2 3
4
5
By: Isl David W. Williams
Negatu Molla
David W. Williams
2901 North Central Avenue
6
7
Suite 1600, Phoenix Plaza
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
Attorneys for Defendant
8 9
10
11
12
13 14 15 16
17
18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25 26
27
?R
::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS
3 Document 217
Filed 09/15/2006
Page 3 of 4
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 15th day of September, 2006 I caused the attached
2 3
document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk's Office using the CMIECF
4
5
System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following
CMIECF registrants:
6
Jennifer Basola
7 KROHN & MOSS, L TD
Phoenix, AZ 85003 9 Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11
8 111 W Monroe, Suite 711
12
sl Judy Kaelin
13 14 15 16
17
18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25 26
27
?R
::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\30721 0\1
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS
4 Document 217
Filed 09/15/2006
Page 4 of 4