Brown v. American Bicycle Group, LLC
224 Cal. App. 4th 665
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Shelley Brown was injured when her riding partner Ronald Voigt’s front bicycle fork failed; Brown sued, asserting products-liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims against American Bicycle Group, LLC (ABG).
- At trial the jury found the fork had a manufacturing defect but that the defect was not a substantial factor in causing Brown’s injuries; judgment entered for ABG.
- Brown moved for a new trial raising, among other claims, that the trial judge failed to disclose ownership interests in insurance-related companies and was biased; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal Brown argued (1) the judge should have disclosed financial interests (permitting a peremptory challenge under Code Civ. Proc. §170.6) and that nondisclosure violated due process, and (2) several evidentiary rulings (denial of three in limine motions) and the denial of the new-trial motion were reversible errors.
- The appellate record contained only a partial reporter’s transcript (one witness) and disclosure forms lodged with the court; Brown did not seek judge disqualification in trial court on the financial-interest ground, and did not object at trial to the evidence at issue in her in limine motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge was required to disclose ownership interests in insurance-related companies, enabling peremptory challenge under §170.6 | Judge’s ownership of insurance-related securities showed pro-insurance bias; nondisclosure deprived Brown of ability to file §170.6 challenge | No disclosed entities were parties or ABG’s insurer; Canon disclosure obligation relates to §170.1 (for-cause) not to enabling §170.6 peremptory challenges | Disclosure not required here; claim also procedurally barred and forfeited for failure to move for disqualification at trial |
| Whether nondisclosure or other facts deprived Brown of due process right to impartial judge | Nondisclosure plus adverse rulings and alleged conduct by judge/research attorney demonstrated bias | Adverse rulings and administrative lapses do not show bias; allegations insufficient to prove impartiality violation | No due process violation shown; appellate claim rejected |
| Whether trial court erred in denying three in limine motions to exclude (maintenance evidence; lack of similar incidents; expert theory of foreign-object strike) | Evidence was speculative or irrelevant and should have been excluded before trial | Motions were denied without prejudice; objections had to be renewed when evidence was offered; expert relied on personal examination and deposition statements | Appellate claims forfeited because in limine denials were tentative and Brown failed to object when evidence was offered; as to foreign-object expert, trial court did not abuse discretion if testimony was grounded in expert’s observations |
| Whether denial of new trial should be reversed | Trial-court errors and bias warranted new trial (arguments largely incorporated by reference to trial filings) | Appellate briefs may not incorporate trial court papers; issues not properly briefed on appeal are forfeited | Forfeited on appeal for improper incorporation and lack of argued grounds; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395 (2005) (statutory writ of mandate is exclusive method to review disqualification rulings)
- Barrett v. Superior Court, 77 Cal.App.4th 1 (1999) (§170.6 peremptory disqualification process described)
- Blakemore v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 36 (2005) (erroneous rulings do not alone establish bias)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012) (trial court gatekeeping of expert opinion under Evidence Code §§801–802; exclude clearly invalid/unreliable opinions)
- Morris v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 152 (1991) (requirements for an in limine motion to preserve evidentiary objections on appeal)
- Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal.3d 564 (1986) (appellate reversal for evidentiary error requires complete record to assess prejudice)
- Haas v. County of San Bernardino, 27 Cal.4th 1017 (2002) (disqualification required only for direct, personal, substantial financial interests)