Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Marshall Meyers (020584) Shalev Amar (022332) KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 111 West Monroe, Suite 711 Phoenix, AZ 85003 (602) 275-5588 (866) 385-5215 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) Case No. CIV 03-869-PHX-FJM CHARLES DE SHAZER, Plaintiff, ) vs. ) RESPONSE TO FREIGHTLINER ) MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 NATIONAL RV HOLDINGS, INC., ) (REGARDING UNFAIRLY and FREIGHTLINER CUSTOM ) PREJUDICIAL ARGUMENTS AND CHASSIS CORPORATION Defendants. ) STATEMENTS) Plaintiff hereby responds to Defendant's Motion in Limine to preclude multiple purportedly prejudicial arguments seratium: 1. Mr. De Shazer's attorneys represent consumers in litigation about bad products. Plaintiff is at a loss as to why this true statement is in any way prejudicial or

misleading. That undersigned represent consumers of "bad," i.e., defective products is simply a factual statement. Freightliner is asking that Plaintiff not be allowed to call a duck a duck. 1 Would a jury be misled or a defendant prejudiced by a personal injury attorney stating she represents injured clients or by a malpractice attorney stating she

1

28

Implied in this Court's holding denying summary judgment is that the subject Motor Home is by definition a "bad" product and that a jury should decide was or was not successfully repaired by Freightliner.
1

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 198

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

represents victims of negligent medical care? Of course not. The same reasoning applies here. 2. 3. 4. Manufacturers use limitations in their warranties to confuse consumers or prevent them from obtaining needed repairs; Manufacturers use limitations in their warranties as part of a conspiracyactual or tacit-to prevent consumers from obtaining needed repairs; Any similar"David vs. Goliath" implications . . . These requests are less justifiable than the preceding request. Manufacturers

(including Freightliner) do routinely use limitations in their warranties to confuse consumers. That is the reason the MMWA was enacted!2 Reciprocity and mutuality demand that Plaintiff be allowed to contend Freightliner (like other manufacturers) uses un-assented unfair warranty limitations that are deceptive and misleading. (5)The RVIA Arbitration Agreement (only in the heading). This request is a roundabout attempt by counsel to avoid the jury hearing how RVIA agreements were hidden from Plaintiff throughout this litigation. See Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Show Cause. Under RVIA, motor home and motor home component manufacturers secretly arbitrate when sued for breach of warranty to apportion liability amongst themselves. The jury must know culpability may already

20 21 22 23

have been agreed upon by Defendants. This goes to the issues of motive and bias which are always admissible, especially as neither Defendant accepts responsibility here. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this

24 25 26 27 28

Honorable Court DENY Freightliner's motion in limine No. 1 be in its entirety.

The MMWA was enacted (1) to cure "[t]he underlying and basic problem [of] how to persuade or compel a manufacturer and the retailer to provide the purchaser of a major appliance with a meaningful guarantee which they will honor in both letter and spirit subsequent to the sale," 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7702, 7709.
2

2

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 198

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of January 2006.

By: s/Marshall Meyers___________ Marshall Meyers Shalev Amar KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 111 W. Monroe, Ste. 711 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attorney for Plaintiff Filed electronically on this 30th day of January 2006, with: United States District Court CM/ECF system Courtesy Copy mailed this 30th day of January 2006, to: Hon Frederick J. Martone United States District Court, District of Arizona 401 West Washington Phoenix AZ 85003 s/Shalev Amar Shalev Amar

3

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 198

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 3 of 3