Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

· I Jennifer Basoia (#23158) 1
2 KROHN & MOSS, LTD.
5055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300
3 Los Angeles, CA 90036 ‘
4 (323) 988-2400
(866) 3856215 (facsimile)
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
S LANE SENNETT ) Case No. CV 04~016l PHX ROS
9 >
E0 Plaintiff, ) MOTIONS IN LIMINE RE
vs. ) DEFENDANT WORKHORSE
ll ) SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO
12 WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS, ) CLAIM AT TRIAL THAT DEALER- _
- LLC, ) INSTALLED ACCESSORIES ARE
13 Defendant. ) NOT COVERED UNDER THE
M ) WORKHORSE WARRANTY.
A )
15 ) (Filed Under Seal)
16 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
17 A motion in limine is a way to obtain an order from the Court enjoining an opponen
*8 from using or mentioning certain prejudicial evidence before the jury during the trial. 20 Am. Jr
19 Trials 44l §2. The purpose of a motion in limine is to avoid disclosing to the jury prejudicia
20
matters which may compel a mistrial- State v. Berger, 108 Ariz. 396, 499 l?.2d 152 (1972).
21
22 Evidence is admissible in a trial only its probative value is substantially outweighed by th
23 danger of prejudice or confusion of the issues. State v. Hensley, 142 Ariz. 598, 691 P.2d 68
24 (1984). “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value i
25
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, 0
1 26 5 ‘
27 misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation o n
28 cumulative evidence? Federal Rule of Evidence 403. A motion in limirre to exclud
- Case 2:04-cv—00161—ROS Documeiit 196 Filed 08/25/2006 Paget 0f3

I evidence should be granted if the evidence sought to be excluded is clearly inadrnissibi
2 for any purpose. P/air v. EJ Breach & Sons, Inc., 864 l*`.Supp. 67, 69 (N .D. lil.l994).
3
4 Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to promote a decision on an improper basis, such a
5 "prejudging” a cause on the basis of irrelevant extraneous factors.
6 II. DEFENDANT WORKHORSE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLAI
7 AT TRIAL THAT DEALERJNSTALLED ACCESSORIES ARE NO
8 COVERED UNDER THE WORKHORSE WARRANTY.
9 Worl 10 covered for the fuli term of the Basic Chassis Coverage? See Exhibit A at page l—l.
ri
section i.2.·4(e). It is anticipated at triai that Defendant Workhorse may attempt to ciaii
E2
13 that certain accessories placed on Plaintiffs Motor Home to {ix the chassis are no
*4 covered by the Workhorse warranty. This claim would be prejudicial to Plaintiff if hear
15
by the jury as Defendant Worl . is
t ,7 instaiied by the dealer are covered by the Workhorse warranty.
IS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court enter an Order barrin
19 Workhorse or any witness from claiming that any modifications made by it authorize
20
21 dealer were not performed under or covered by Worl 22 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 25th day of August, 2006.
23 By: s/Jennifer Basola
24 Jennifer Basola
25 KROI-IN & MOSS, LTD.
lil West Monroe, 711
26 Phoenix, AZ 85003
_ 27 Attorney for Plaintiff(s)
2 28 Filed under seai on this 25th day of August, 2006, with:
t Case 2:04-cv—00161-ROS Documedt 196 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 3

I United States District Court CM/ECP system .
2 Copy e—1nai1 delivered on this 25th day of August, 2006, to:
3 .
4 Hon. Roslyn O. Silver
United States District Court, District of Arizona
5 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse ‘
6 40}, West Washington Street -
i Phoenix AZ 85003
7
8 Copy emailed and sent via US mail this 25th day of August, 2006 to:
9 Mr. Negatu Molla
10 Attorney 1
Bowman and Brooke, LLP.
it 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
12 Phoenix AZ 85012-2761
is ms/Toni Estrella_,_
Toni Estrella
14
I5
E6
17
18
19 ,
20
21
22
23-
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:04-cv—00161—FiOS Documerit 196 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 196

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 196

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 196

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 3 of 3