Judge: Michael Small, Case: 21STCV22254, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22254    Hearing Date: June 17, 2024    Dept: 57

To Counsel in Ingram v. American Honda Motor Co:   

The Court is not already engaged in a trial on June 17, 2024.  There is one other case on calendar in Dept. 57 that is slated to start the trial on June 17, 2024 that has priority over Ingram.   That case is Reyes v. Matian Law Group, 21STCV13572.  At last report, however, that case was in a settlement posture.  Thus, it appears that the trial in Ingram can go forward.   The trial in Ingram will not begin on June 17, 2024, however.  That is because there are objections to more than half of the exhibits on the joint exhibit list  Those objections need to be resolved before a jury pool is called to Dept. 57.   The Court's intention is to spend the day on June 17 working with counsel to resolve the disputed exhibits. 
  
MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine

As a reminder, on December 22, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion in limine # 1, and granted #s 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. 

The Court's own internal notes state that Plaintiffs' motion in limine # 7 was granted on January 22, 2024, but the minute order for that date does not reflect that any ruling was made on that motion.   The motion is granted. This is not a tentative ruling.   

A ruling on Plaintiffs' motion in limine # 6 was deferred.  The Court's tentative ruling is to grant that motion.
Defendant's Motions in Limine 

The Court's tentative decisions are as follows:   Motion in Limine # 1 is denied.  Motions in Limine ##s 2 and 3 are granted.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

The Court's tentative decision is to give Plaintiffs' proposed special jury instructions ##s 1 and 2, but to deny Plaintiffs' proposed special jury instructions ## 3, 4, 5, and 6.

WITNESS LIST

The Court observes that the projected time for the testimony of both Ingrams is 3.5 hours each, or 7 hours total.  That strikes the Court as somewhat excessive.  Do both Ingrams need to testify for 3.5 hours?  It would seem that there will be redundancies if both of them testify for the same length of time.


STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The Court has revised the statement of the case .  The goal was to shorten and tighten it .  Here is the tentative revised statement of the case.

Plaintiffs Dana Kathleen Ingram and Mark Henry Ingram (“the Ingrams”) purchased a new 2017 Honda CR-V (“the Vehicle”) on or about January 23, 2017.  The Vehicle was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant American Honda Motor Company (“Honda”) and purchased by the Ingrams from an authorized Honda retailer.

The Ingrams sued Honda under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Song-Beverly Act”).  The Ingrams contend in their suit that Honda violated the Song-Beverly Act by breaching its express and implied warranties related to the fitness of the Vehicle that Honda made to Ingrams.  Specifically, the Ingrams contend that Honda failed to repair substantially impairing defects in the Vehicle under the express warranty within a reasonable number of repairs attempts, and that the Vehicle was not the same quality as those generally accepted in the trade or fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was to be used.  The Ingrams further contend that Honda failed to provide adequate literature and parts to its repair facilities and failed to commence repairs within a reasonable time or complete them within 30 days.  As remedies for these alleged breaches of warranties in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, the Ingrams seek an order requiring Honda to repurchase the Vehicle and an award of civil penalties based on Honda’s alleged willful failure to repurchase or replace the Vehicle.

Honda denies the Ingrams’ contentions that it breached the express or implied warranties in violation of the Song-Beverly Act and that Honda is liable to the Ingrams for the remedies that the Ingrams seek under the Song-Beverly Act.