Free Response 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

Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Firm State Bar No. 00443100 Renaissance One Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391
TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

Attorneys for Defendant National RV Holdings Inc. William M. Shattuck (#007727) [email protected] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Charles DeShazer, Plaintiff, vs. National RV Holdings, Inc., Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation and Caterpillar Inc. Defendants. NO. CIV-03-0869-PHX-FJM DEFENDANT NATIONAL RV'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S MULTIPLE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

By and through its undersigned counsel of record, defendant National RV Holdings Inc. ("National RV") responds as follows to Motions in Limine One through Four as filed by the plaintiffs on January 27, 2006:
Motion in Limine 1: to Bar Reference to Any Prior Convictions of Any Witness Over Ten Years Old.

National RV acknowledges the provisions of Rule of Evidence 609(b) and does not oppose this motion. It is further noted that this is a boilerplate motion in limine by the Krohn & Moss firm in cases of this type and is presented to this Court without reference to any witness or to the background of any witness. Motion In Limine 2: to Bar Defendants From Arguing That Repairs Under Warranty Were Not Performed to Remedy a Defect in Materials or Workmanship. National RV reserves the right to contest the Milicevic decision and its application to this case. If, however, this Court applies Milicevic as argued by the plaintiff, then it is

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM QBPHX\691225.00002\1987247.1

Document 197

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 1 of 4

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

important to note, as acknowledged by plaintiff, that Milicevic applies only to repairs performed under warranty; consequently, repairs not performed under warranty but performed for some other reason, such as customer good will, do not constitute an admission of a defect. Thus, if by their motion the plaintiffs are arguing that National RV is not permitted to distinguish repairs performed under its warranty from, for example, customer good will repairs that it performed, then the motion must be denied consistent with Milicevic. Accordingly, this motion in limine should be denied. Motion In Limine 3: Reference to the Nudist Ranch. The plaintiff has permanently parked his motorhome at the nudist ranch and is living in the motorhome, using the motorhome as his primary residence. While a jury may perhaps not need to know that the Shangri La Ranch is a nudist ranch, the jury certainly should know that this motorhome is serving as plaintiff's principle residence since that fact is relevant to the issue of whether an alleged defect is truly a defect or is instead a condition caused by plaintiff's extensive and daily use of the motorhome, and that fact is also relevant to the plaintiff's claim for loss of use, inconvenience and aggravation damages. Motion in Limine 4: Re-Categorizing the Language in Repair Orders. Certainly the defendants' witnesses should be permitted to comment upon repair orders by identifying the component that was repaired and by explaining what the repair consisted of, how the repair was performed and the purpose of the repair. Such testimony does not "twist the plain language" of the repair orders as argued by the plaintiff but instead assists the lay jury in understanding the repairs so that the jury is better able to determine whether either defendant has breached its warranty. Accordingly, this motion in limine should be denied.

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM QBPHX\691225.00002\1987247.1

Document 197 -2-Filed 01/31/2006

Page 2 of 4

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

DATED this 31st day of January, 2006. QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG LLP Renaissance One Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 By s/William M. Shattuck William M. Shattuck Attorneys for Defendant National RV Holdings Inc.

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM QBPHX\691225.00002\1987247.1

Document 197 -3-Filed 01/31/2006

Page 3 of 4

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 s/ William M. Shattuck William M. Shattuck

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Marshall Meyers, Esq. KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 111 W. Monroe, #711 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attorneys for Plaintiff John C. Hendricks, Esq. Meagher & Geer P.L.L.P. 8800 North Gainey Center Drive, Suite 261 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Attorneys for Defendant Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM QBPHX\691225.00002\1987247.1

Document 197 -4-Filed 01/31/2006

Page 4 of 4