Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV33808 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV33808, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33808 Hearing Date: September 13, 2022 Dept: 47

20STCV33808 EDUARDO YANEZ GUZMAN vs FCA US LLC

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 1 – seeking order excluding evidence and argument regarding any marketing or advertising by Plaintiff’s attorneys.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, as such matters are not relevant to any claim or defense and are potentially prejudicial and, thus, should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352. All counsel and parties will be introduced to prospective jurors who will be asked by the Court if they have ever heard of or know any of the parties, lawyers or law firms and, if so, how they came to hear of or know any of them. The Court may inquire into any prior impressions these potential jurors have of any of the parties or lawyers but this questioning may be conducted out of the earshot of other jurors, because of the potentially prejudicial impact of negative views of individual jurors.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 2: seeking order excluding evidence and argument regarding Plaintiff’s ability to recover attorney’s fees, suggestions that the litigation is attorney-driven, or otherwise attacking or criticizing Plaintiff’s counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, as such matters are not relevant to any claim or defense and are potentially prejudicial and, thus, should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352.

In opposition to the motion, Defendant argues that it “will seek at trial to prove that it attempted to comply with Song-Beverly by offering to repurchase or replace Plaintiff’s vehicle” and that communications about such offers “may raise issues of attorney’s fees.” (Opp., p. 2.) Based on this contention, Defendant urges the Court to deny the motion as overbroad and handle the concerns raised by Plaintiff in the motion by fielding specific objections to evidence at trial. Because of Plaintiff’s concerns not just about evidence offered by Defendant but also about defense counsel’s statements and arguments presented at trial, such an approach would deny important relief to Plaintiff and could engender substantial prejudice.

Further, Defendant’s references to its offers to repurchase are vague and confusing given its failure to raise such a defense in its trial brief. Instead of arguing that Defendant offered to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle, its trial brief asserts instead that Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s request for repurchase by determining that Plaintiff’s case “should be escalated to I2R for review” and “offer[ing] Plaintiff information on arbitration if Plaintiff wanted to pursue his lemon law claim.” (Defendant’s Trial Brief, p. 3.) Thus, the Court has no idea what evidence Defendant claims to warrant a carveout from the Court’s MIL ruling.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion in limine but provides Defendant with the opportunity to demonstrate that certain evidence is sufficiently relevant to the claims and defenses in this case such that it should be admitted to the jury and included in proper arguments by counsel. If Defendant seeks to offer any evidence that “raise[s] issues of attorney’s fees,” whether in the context of an offer to repurchase or otherwise, it should make a specific offer of proof regarding the evidence it seeks to have admitted, including by providing the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel with the 2 or 3 exhibits it mentions in its brief and describing the testimony it would offer in connection with those exhibits (Opp., p. 2), before any of that evidence is offered into evidence or described in arguments to the jury.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 3: seeking order prohibiting argument or testimony that Defendant conformed the vehicle within a reasonable number of repair attempts because Defendant repaired a particular component.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED.

Plaintiff has failed to identify any evidence he seeks to exclude. What is more, it appears to the Court that the crux of Plaintiff’s motion is not to prohibit the introduction of any evidence but rather solely to restrict the arguments that might be made about the controlling law and how it applies to the facts. While the Court would be inclined to restrict the parties from arguing that the Court’s jury instructions mean something other than what the law requires, a decision about that issue is premature and should be reserved to when the Court finalizes the jury instructions based on the evidence admitted at trial and makes decisions about proper closing arguments to the jury. The Court cautions the parties that neither voir dire nor opening statements are vehicles for counsel to advocate for their interpretation of the law, so both parties must avoid presenting any argument about their views of how the law applies to the facts in the case, except to say broadly that Plaintiff/Defendant believes that the evidence will show or not show that Plaintiff’s vehicle had “defects that were covered by the warranty and that substantially impaired its use, value or safety” and that the evidence will show or not show that Defendant “failed to repair the vehicle to match the written warranty after a reasonable number of opportunities to do so.” (CACI 3201.) If the parties want the Court to resolve the legal debate their briefs present before the end of trial, the Court is open to setting a hearing for doing so.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 4: seeking order prohibiting argument or testimony that Plaintiff did not make sufficient efforts to ask Defendant to repurchase or replace the vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED.

Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific evidence that he seeks to exclude by way of his motion in limine. Presumably, at a minimum, Plaintiff seeks to bar Defendant’s inquiries about whether Plaintiff made any such requests or whether Defendant received any requests for repurchase or replacement of the vehicle. Based on the legal authorities discussed in Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court would be inclined to prohibit any such questioning as irrelevant to the claims and defenses before the Court. While Defendant’s responses to any requests Plaintiff made may be relevant at trial, as Defendant suggests, questions seeking to elicit testimony that Plaintiff made no such requests or delayed in making them is not.

While the issue is not generally raised by a motion in limine, the Court is inclined to approve Plaintiff’s Special Jury Instruction No. 2 in some form. The Court is open to hearing argument or setting a later hearing on this proposed instruction and other disputes over substantive jury instructions.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 5: seeking order prohibiting argument that Defendant FCA US LLC is not responsible for its authorized repair facility or that they are not the agent of FCA.

TENTATIVE RULING: NEED CLARITY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S AGENCY CONTENTIONS

Again, Plaintiff seeks an order barring certain argument, rather than specific evidence, but an order eliminating Defendant’s contention that the authorized repair facility is not its agent would necessarily exclude a wide range of evidence regarding the existence, nature and scope of any agency relationship. Thus, rather than granting a broad prohibition of Defendant’s agency denial, the Court orders Defendant to disclose its trial position regarding any agency relationship between itself and its authorized repair facilities and describe the evidence it intends to offer in support of that position. The Court notes that the jury instructions proffered by the parties include no agency instruction nor any indication that Defendant will disclaim an agency relationship with its authorized repair facilities. Based on the character of Defendant’s agency contentions, the Court will rule on the motion in limine.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 6: seeking order prohibiting evidence or argument regarding any disclaimer or expiration of the implied warranty.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED IN PART, as to contentions regarding disclaimers, and DENIED IN PART, as to duration or expiration of implied warranty because there are triable issues about whether there was a latent defect that existed during the initial one-year period but was not reported until later.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 7: seeking order prohibiting evidence or argument that Plaintiff misused, abused or failed to maintain the vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED. Plaintiff argues there is no evidentiary basis for expert testimony or argument by counsel that he contributed to the vehicle’s defects as a result of misuse, abuse or a failure to maintain the vehicle. Defendant fails to meet this argument head-on, instead merely arguing that Plaintiff has not identified specific evidence sought to be excluded. The Court finds that no expert testimony, examination of witnesses or counsel’s argument may be presented at trial unless it is based on an offer a proof by counsel or through an evidentiary hearing under Evidence Code section 402 establishing that there is an evidentiary basis for the expert opinions, examination or argument sought to be offered by Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 8: seeking order excluding any reference to any settlement offers or negotiations

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, without opposition, as such matters are not relevant to any claim or defense and are potentially prejudicial and, thus, should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 9: seeking order excluding any evidence or suggestion that lemon law and auto defect lawsuits result in increased vehicle costs for consumers.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, without opposition, as such matters are not relevant to any claim or defense and are potentially prejudicial and, thus, should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 10: seeking order excluding any evidence or argument regarding Defendant’s optional arbitration program.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, as such matters are not relevant to any claim or defense and are potentially prejudicial and, thus, should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352. Because Plaintiff does not seek relief under Civil Code § 1794(e) or § 1793.22, evidence of the existence or Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s optional arbitration program is irrelevant to the claims raised in this case. The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that its arbitration program is relevant to the question of whether its failure to repurchase or replace the vehicle was willful. The existence of this program prior to Defendant’s failure has no probative value for the question of willfulness. Similarly, its decision to refer Plaintiff that program is evidence of its failure to repurchase or replace the vehicle, but says nothing about whether that failure was willful.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL # 11: seeking order excluding any evidence or argument regarding Defendant’s current ability to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle or the costs or methods for such a repair.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED. Evidence of the current possibility, cost or method that might be used to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action. The issue at trial is not what could be done now to remedy the vehicle’s defects but rather whether Defendant did in fact repair those defects after being presented with a reasonable number of attempts to do so. Further, because of the speculative character of such evidence and the need to delve into how and when the proposed fix was developed, any marginal relevance is outweighed by the potential for prejudice, jury confusion and undue consumption of time and, thus, the evidence should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 1: seeking an order precluding reference to absence of a corporate representative at trial.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, as such comments are not relevant to any claim or defense and are potentially prejudicial and, thus, should be excluded under Evidence Code § 352. Comments on the presence or absence of any party as an observer at trial lacks any probative value on any issue at trial. On the other hand, to the extent that Defendant fails to produce a knowledgeable witness on a key issue at trial, Plaintiff is free to argue, consistent with CACI 203 and 205, that Defendant had the ability to produce a corporate representative as a witness at trial to offer stronger evidence on a subject but failed to do so.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 2: seeking an order excluding evidence regarding negative press coverage of the automotive industry, including Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART. In general, the Court finds such evidence to be irrelevant hearsay that cannot be admitted at trial and, depending on its content, may well be excluded in any event under Evidence Code § 352. The motion is granted as to any press coverage regarding the automotive industry generally or manufacturers other than Defendant, and as to press coverage regarding Defendant, Plaintiff must make an offer of proof regarding specific evidence he will seek to admit at trial and obtain a ruling on its admissibility before any argument, testimony or exhibit is presented at trial.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 3: seeking an order excluding evidence of alleged defects outside the applicable warranty period.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Evidence of repairs made after expiration of the warranty period may be relevant and admissible to show that the prior repairs made did not bring the vehicle into conformity with the warranty’s terms, so long as there the post-warranty defect is related to or has some causal connection to a defect presented for repair during the warranty period. Such evidence may also be admissible to show Plaintiff’s damages if he paid for post-warranty repairs that should have been made during the warranty period. Any objections to specific evidence must be asserted at trial so the Court can determine if it meets these relevance standards or is admissible on another basis.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 4: seeking an order excluding evidence of any alleged nonconformities not presented.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Defendant does not identify specific evidence that it seeks to exclude which makes a ruling on this motion unwise and impractical. The Court concludes that any objections to evidence of defects being presented for repairs should be made at trial so the Court can determine if the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 5: seeking an order excluding evidence of any alleged recalls that are unrelated to warranted concerns experienced by Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Defendant does not identify specific evidence that it seeks to exclude which makes a ruling on this motion unwise and impractical. The Court concludes that any objections to evidence related to specific recall notices should be made at trial so the Court can determine if the evidence is relevance and otherwise admissible.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 6: seeking an order excluding evidence and argument of any repairs or alleged problems that occurred after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Evidence of repairs made or problems arising after this lawsuit was filed may be relevant and admissible to show that the prior repairs made did not bring the vehicle into conformity with the warranty’s terms, so long as there the post-warranty defect is related to or has some causal connection to a defect presented for repair during the warranty period. Such evidence may also be admissible to show Plaintiff’s damages if he paid for post-warranty repairs that should have been made during the warranty period or before the lawsuit was filed. Any objections to specific evidence must be asserted at trial so the Court can determine if it meets these relevance standards or is admissible on another basis.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 7: seeking an order excluding improper “reptile tactics.”

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court admonishes the parties to avoid any arguments that ask jurors to put themselves in the “shoes” of Plaintiff or to act on the basis of some ill-defined community interests. Such arguments are improper because they invite jurors to abandon the neutrality they should harbor and instead to decide cases based on their own personal or community interests. To this extent, the motion is granted. As to specific questions posed to witnesses or specific arguments made at trial, the Court denies the motion and directs counsel to raise specific objections they believe are warranted in response to specific acts at trial.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 8: seeking an order excluding legal opinions that invade the purview of the jury.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Plaintiff is entitled to present lay testimony about his experiences with the defects in his vehicle and the impact they have had on his life. Further, expert testimony is not only admissible but necessary to explain to the jury the nature and extent of the defects that arose in Plaintiff’s vehicle and the impact of those defects on the functionality, value, safety and/or an owner’s enjoyment of the vehicle. To the extent that these expert opinions extend to the ultimate issues in the case, including whether the vehicle’s defects were “substantial,” such testimony is admissible under Evidence Code § 805, so long as it is within the expert’s expertise under Evidence Code § 801(b).

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 9: seeking an order excluding reference to other lawsuits filed against FCA US LLC.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, without opposition.

DEFENDANT’S MIL # 10: seeking an order excluding testimony of Plaintiff’s experts at trial.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant moves to exclude four of the five automotive experts Plaintiff has designated for testimony at trial. Plaintiff does not oppose and instead concedes that only one of his experts will testify at trial.