Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: BC644440, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC644440 Hearing Date: October 4, 2022 Dept: 58
Kawakami v Toyota Motor
BC644440
Ruling on motions in limine
Plaintiff’s
motions in limine
Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1: To preclude mention of Plaintiff’s demand for
attorney’s fees.
Granted. This motion appears to be unopposed. Attorney’s fees is not an appropriate issue
for consideration by the jury. (CACI 3964.)
Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 2: To permit oral statements by dealership
personnel.
Granted
provisionally. Provided sufficient foundation of the
context of declarant’s communication, to the extent the statement concerns
repair to Plaintiff’s vehicle, it is likely to be admissible against a hearsay
objection under Evidence Code section 1222.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 3: To preclude evidence or reference to
arbitration.
Denied.
It appears no arbitration took place.
The Court cannot say that any mention of the existence of an arbitration
program must be excluded. The Court will
apply Evidence Code section 352 to determine whether the topic will necessitate
an undue consumption of time or mislead the jury.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 4: To preclude argument or evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s continued use of the subject vehicle.
Denied. This evidence is relevant to the issue of
substantial impairment, and is not unduly prejudicial or misleading. The parties are free to argue the
significance of Plaintiff’s use of the vehicle to the jury.
Defendant’s
motions in limine
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 1: To preclude questioning of Defendant’s
employees regarding their knowledge of the Song-Beverly Act.
Denied.
The Court will not permit Defendant’s employees to be asked or to give
answers on issues of law, or to be quizzed on aspects of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act. They may,
however, testify based on their personal knowledge about Defendant’s policies
and their understanding of the Defendant’s obligations under the Act.
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 2: To preclude Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s lay
witnesses from testifying regarding substantial impairment.
Denied as
phrased. The motion is overbroad. No
lay witness may offer an opinion of whether the vehicle’s defect “substantially
impaired” the use, value, or safety of the vehicle in question. That is a question for the jury. (CACI 3201, 3204.) But a lay witness with personal knowledge may
testify “regarding” substantial impairment, for example whether a repair
attempt was successful, or the degree the vehicle could be used while awaiting
repair.
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 3: To preclude evidence of inapplicable
technical service bulletins or recalls.
Denied as
phrased. A motion in limine must set
forth a specific identification of the matter alleged to be inadmissible. This motion seeks exclusion of “inapplicable”
documents, but does not identify a specific document. This is not far from a motion seeking to
exclude all irrelevant documents. The
Court will limit sidebars and other procedures that impede the trial and
inconvenience the jury. The parties
should confer on specific exhibits they intend to introduce and, if unable to
reach a stipulation, seek guidance from the Court outside the jury’s presence.
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 4: To preclude evidence of complaints that were
reported “once or never.”
Denied. CACI 3202 defines repair opportunities. Ordinarily, the defendant must have been
given two opportunities to fix the vehicle.
The law does not require that a complaint about a specific defect be made
at least twice. However, Plaintiff shall
not be permitted to offer evidence of a defect that was never complained of.
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 5: To limit Plaintiff’s expert to opinions and
conclusions offered at deposition.
Denied. It is well established that the Court may
exclude evidence of an expert’s opinion not disclosed in deposition. (Kennemur v. State of California
(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 918-920.) This
is not a proper motion in limine under Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.57,
because the specific evidence sought to be excluded is not provided. At trial, the party objecting to an expert’s
opinion based on Kennemur must be prepared with the page and line
reference from the witness’s deposition in which a “close out” question was
answered. The proponent of the expert
must be prepared with the page and line reference for the opinion or for where
fair notice was given that the opinion would be expressed.
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 6: To preclude Plaintiff’s expert Dan Calef from
testifying to the definition of the term “use” under the Song-Beverly Act.
Granted.
The word “use” has no unique definition in the Song-Beverly Act or in
the trade of automobile sales. The
meaning of such a common word is not sufficiently beyond common experience that
the opinion would assist the trier of fact.
Defendant’s motion in limine no. 7: To preclude introduction of videos not
produced in discovery and disclosed after the discovery cutoff.
Denied.
The Court will require Plaintiff to make a specific offer of proof
concerning any videotapes it intends to use, and lay a proper foundation before
it can be shown to the jury. The Court
denies the motion on grounds of delay and finds the discovery cutoff
inapplicable. No evidence of violation
of a court order or how Defendant is prejudiced has been shown.