Celestine v. FCA US LLC, 2:17-cv-00597

Background

Plaintiff Larry Celestine purchased a 2012 Dodge Durango and alleges the vehicle had serious defects and nonconformities to warranty related to a TIPM (Totally Integrated Power Module) and seeks relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and for fraudulent inducement under California law.
Defendant FCA US LLC denies liability and moved to exclude various documents and expert testimony at trial via multiple motions in limine.
Plaintiff moved to preclude questions about whether he requested buyback or used FCA’s dispute resolution procedures and sought to exclude testimony from FCA’s designated witness Michael McDowell.
Defendant moved to exclude testimony of plaintiff’s expert Dr. Barbara Luna in part, numerous corporate documents and emails about TIPM problems in other vehicles, and certain post-warranty repair records and a later recall.
The court reviewed relevance and Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping principles, focusing on whether evidence related to other vehicles or versions of TIPM is sufficiently connected to Celestine’s 2012 Durango and whether Dr. Luna had a reliable factual and expert foundation.
Rulings: plaintiff’s motion to bar questioning about failure to complain was denied; McDowell may testify but not venture into expert opinion; Dr. Luna was limited from offering opinions tying the TIPM-7 (or Chrysler’s knowledge of it) to Celestine’s vehicle and from opining about Chrysler’s code of conduct or legal obligations; many TIPM-related documents regarding other models were excluded; post-warranty repair records were conditionally admissible while a later recall was excluded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff can be questioned about not requesting repurchase or using FCA dispute program	Such questions are irrelevant because Song-Beverly places monitoring/repair burden on manufacturer and consumer need only allow reasonable repair attempts	Absence of complaints or buyback requests is probative of whether a defect substantially impaired use/value and whether repairs occurred	Denied — defendant may ask about plaintiff’s failure to complain or seek buyback
Admissibility of testimony from FCA’s corporate designee Michael McDowell	Plaintiff argued McDowell lacks grounds to offer opinions beyond factual testimony; sought to exclude him	Defendant says McDowell has personal knowledge of FCA records and will not offer expert opinions	Denied — McDowell may testify from personal knowledge but cannot offer expert opinions
Admissibility and scope of Dr. Barbara Luna’s expert testimony	Luna may testify about corporate knowledge, practices, and whether Chrysler concealed TIPM defects based on review of thousands of corporate documents	Defendant contends Luna lacks mechanical/engineering expertise, didn’t review plaintiff’s automotive expert report, and cannot tie documents to the specific TIPM in plaintiff’s truck	Granted in part — Luna may not opine that the TIPM-7 in plaintiff’s vehicle was defective, when defendant knew of defects in that specific TIPM, or that defendant fraudulently concealed that defect; testimony about code of conduct and legal obligations excluded under Rule 403; other testimony limited by foundation requirements
Admissibility of documents/emails/TSBs/recalls concerning TIPM issues in other makes/models	Plaintiff contends TIPM-7 was used across many vehicles so documents showing TIPM problems elsewhere are relevant to defendant’s knowledge and pattern	Defendant asserts the documents concern different vehicles or TIPM versions and are not tied to the 2012 Durango, so they are irrelevant and unduly prejudicial ("me too" evidence)	Granted — documents, TSBs, emails and nonparty technical materials not shown to relate specifically to plaintiff’s vehicle or TIPM version are excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial
Admissibility of post-warranty repairs and a later recall	Plaintiff says post-warranty repairs show prior warranty repairs were ineffective and may be relevant under Donlen	Defendant says later recall and post-sale repairs are unrelated and not probative of warranty-period conformity	Mixed — recall excluded; post-warranty repair records may be admissible if causally related to problems during warranty period (denied only to extent tied to the recall)

Key Cases Cited

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (motions in limine recognized as tool to resolve evidentiary disputes pretrial)
Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (motions in limine permit resolving evidentiary disputes before jury exposure)
Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708 (6th Cir. 1975) (disfavor of broad in limine exclusions; better to rule at trial)
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 1997) (motions in limine important for trial management but not to resolve factual disputes)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (weighing evidence is role of the jury)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (trial court’s Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (expert testimony must be reliable and relevant)
Krotin v. Porsche Cars N. Am., 38 Cal. App. 4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (Song-Beverly places affirmative duty on manufacturer to repurchase or make restitution when unable to repair; buyer need only allow reasonable repair attempts)
Lukather v. General Motors, LLC, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (buyer not required to act promptly under Song-Beverly beyond permitting repair)
Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (post-warranty repairs may be admissible to show prior repairs did not cure the defect)