Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 79.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 514 Words, 3,345 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/34011/183.pdf

Download Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona ( 79.6 kB)


Preview Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona
I J oh11 C. Hendricks #19493
MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
2 8800 N. Gainey Center Drive, Suite 261
Scottsdale, Aiizona 85258
3 Telephone: (480) 607-9719
Facsimile: (480) 607-9780
4 Attorneys for Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Charles De Shazer, )
9 ) NO. CIV03-869-PHX-FJM
Plaintiff, ·
10 FREIGHTLINER’S MOTION IN
vs. ) LIMINE NO. 1 (REGARDING
11 ) UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL
National RV Holdings Inc., and Freightliner ) ARGUMENTS AND STATEMENTS,
12 Custom Chassis Corporation, INCLUDING THE RVIA
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT)
13 Defendants.
14 j
15 Defendant Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation ("Freightliner") requests the Court to
16 prohibit Mr. De Shazer, his attomeys, witnesses, experts, and other representatives to make
17 statements during jury selection, opening statements, or closing argument, or to present or elicit
18 testimony at trial to the effect that:
19 1. Mr. De Shazer’s attomeys represent consumers in litigation about bad products;
20 2. Manufacturers use limitations in their warranties to confuse consumers or to prevent
21 them from obtaining needed repairs.
22 3. Manufacturers use limitations in their warranties as part of a conspiracy — actual or
23 tacit- toprevent consumers from obtaining needed repairs.
24 4. Any similar "David vs. Goliath" implications or suggestions that manufacturers
2 5 routinely try to take unfair advantage of consumers after a product is sold.
26 Any such statements or arguments are not based on evidence in this case and are intended
solely to prejudice or mislead the jury and are unfairly prejudicial to Freightliner. They therefore
Case 2:03-cv—OO869-FJIVI Document 183 Filed O1/27/2006 Page 1 of 2

I violate F.R.E. 401-03. This Motion also includes, but is not limited to, the RVIA Arbitration
2 Agreement that is the subject of Mr. De Shazer’s pen ' : ;_ Mot `on to Show Cause.
DATED this ? day of January, 2006. r _
3 A p~
4 MEAG : e E :· PL.; P.
5 ll f /
7 Jo 1 *e 4 s
8800 N. ¤ ainey Center Drive, Suite 261
8 Scottsdal , Arizona 85258
9 Attorney for Defendant, Freightliner, LLC
10 I hereby certify that on this 27th of January, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached
documents to the clerk’s office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a notice
ll of electric filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
12
Marshall S. Meyers
13 KROHN & Moss LTD.
14 111 W. Monroe, Suite 711
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
15 Attomeys for Plaintiff, Charles DeShazer
16 . .
William M. Shattuck
17 QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG LLP
18 One Renaissance Square
Two North Central Avenue
19 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391
20 Attorneys for Defendant National RV Holdings
21 I hereby certify that on this 27th day of January, 2006, I served the attached document by mailfhand-
delivery on the following who are not participants of the CM/ECF system:
22
23 Hon. Frederick . Martone
United States District Court
24 401 W. Washington
25 Phoenix, AZ 85003
26 _
60089
2
Case 2:03-cv—OO869-FJIVI Document 183 Filed O1/27/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 183

Filed 01/27/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-00869-FJM

Document 183

Filed 01/27/2006

Page 2 of 2