Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 John C. Hendricks #19493
MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
2 8800 N. Gainey Center D1ive, Suite 261
Scottsdale, A1izona 85258
3 Telephone: (480) 607-9719
Facs1mile: (480) 607-9780 _ _
4 Attorneys for F reightliner Custom Chassis Corporation
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 i FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Charles De Shazer, )
9 NO. CIV03-869-PHX-FJM
Plaintiff, )
10 ) FREIGHTLINER’S RESPONSE TO
vs. MR. DE SHAZER’S MOTIONS IN
1 1 . LIMINE
National RV Holdings Inc., and Freightliner
12 Custom Chassis Corporation,
13 Defendants. l
14 g
15 Defendant Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation ("Freightliner") responds as follows to
16 the Motions in Limine tiled by Plaintiff Charles De Shazer ("Mr. De Shazer”):
17 MOTION NO. 1: CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
1 8
Freightliner is not aware _of any criminal convictions, so this motion is moot.
19
MOTION NO. 2: WARRANTY REPAIRS
20
21 An attempt to repair a problem with a motor vehicle in fulfillment of a manufacturer’s
22 warranty obligation is not an admission that the vehicle, or any of its component is defective. At
23 most, a failed repair might constitute evidence that there was a problem with the component on
24 which repairs were attempted (although a failed repair logically might indicate the opposite, as
25 well). In any event, F .R.E. 407 clearly provides:
When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that,
26 if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur,
evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable
Case 2:03-cv—OO869-FJIVI Document 203 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 1 of 4

1 conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning
or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent
2 measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or .
3 feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
4 Thus, the repair history for Mr. De Shazer’s motor home camiot be used to argue there
5 "must be something wrong" with the motor home for which one or the other of the Defendants is
6 responsible. The burden is on Mr. De Shazer to prove that the problems he claims to have are
7 covered by National RV’ s warranty or Freightliner’s warranty. There is no basis for joint liability.
lf Mr. De Shazer cannot prove that specific problems are subject to a specific warranty, he cannot
8
recover.
9
Additionally, in at least some cases, Mr. De Shazer received warranty benefits even when it
10
was not clear he was entitled to them. In that event, warranty repairs are in the nature of a
ll compromise settlement, not an admission of liability. F.R.E. 408 provides:
12 Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or
13 offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or
attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or
14 amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its
15 amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is
likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence
16 otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise
17 negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered
for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
18 contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or
1 9 prosecution.
MOTION NO. 3: SHANGRI LA RANCH
20
21 Freightliner does not plan to offer evidence critical of "alternative life styles." However,
22 Mr. De Shazer does live at Shangri La Ranch, which is a clothing optional facility. Additionally,
23 his motor home was there when Freightliner inspected it. Thus, evidence that Mr. De Shazer lives
24 at Shangri La Ranch is going to come up, directly or indirectly, in this case.
25 Shangri La Ranch is a clothing optional facility. F reightliner’s concern is that one or more
26 jurors may know or figure out that Mr. De Shazer lives at a "nudist ranch” (as Mr. De Shazer’s
2
Case 2:03-cv—OO869-FJIVI Document 203 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 2 of 4

1 attorneys call it) even if it is not referred to by name. If it turns out that jurors have a prejudice
2 against people who have adopted a clothing optional lifestyle, that prejudice will be used to attack
3 a defense verdict following the trial.
4 To avoid that problem, Freightliner has simply asked the Court to inquire about Shangri La
5 Ranch and clothing optional living arrangements during jury selection. The altemative is to take a
chance on unknowingly seating jurors who may be biased for or against Mr. De Shazer’s clothing
6 optional lifestyle. The only way to find out if there may be a problem is to ask about the issue
7 during jury selection, which is what Freightliner has requested the Court to do. There is no reason
8 for the matter to go any further than that.
9 MOTION NO. 4: THE TERMS OF FREIGHTLINER’S WARRRANTY
I) Frankly, Freightliner is not entirely certain what this Motion is addressing. However, if it
12 means that F reightliner cannot disagree with Mr. De Shazer’s interpretation of his warranty, or
13 whether it covers existing problems, such a request is fundamentally unjust. Freightliner’s
explanation about why it has or has not provided warranty repairs is at least as valid as Mr.
14 DeShazer’s view about whether repairs are covered.
15 Prohibiting Freightliner from explaining why it did or did not cover Mr. De Shazer’s
16 complaints about problems with his motor home is tantamount to preventing Freightliner from
17 telling its side of the story involved in this case. Consequently, prohibiting Freightliner to put on
18 evidence to explain the reasons for its decisions, as requested by Mr. De Shazer, would be contrary
19 to F.R.E. 401-03.
20 DATED this lst day of February, 2006.
2 1
22 . MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
23
24 By /s/
John C. Hendricks
25 8800 N. Gainey Center Drive, Suite 261
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
26 . Attorneys for Defendant, Freightliner, LLC
3
Case 2:03-cv—OO869-FJIVI Document 203 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 3 of 4

l . . . .
I hereby certrfy that on this lst day of February, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached
2 documents to the clerk’s office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a notice
3 of electric filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
4 Marshall S. Meyers
KROHN & MOSS LTD.
5 lll W. Monroe, Suite 711
6 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Charles DeShazer
-
8 William M. Shattuck
QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG LLP
9 One Renaissance Square
10 Two North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391
11 Attorneys for Defendant National RV Holdings
12 I hereby certify that on this lst day of February, 2006, I served the attached document by mailfhand-
13 delivery on the following who are not participants ofthe CM/ECF system:
14 Hon. Frederick J. Martone
15 United States District Court
401 W. Washington
16 Phoenix,`AZ 85003
17
1 8 soiao
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 `
26
4
Case 2:03-cv—OO869-FJIVI Document 203 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 203

Filed 02/01/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 203

Filed 02/01/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 203

Filed 02/01/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 203

Filed 02/01/2006

Page 4 of 4