Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Lisa G.

Lewallen (013592)
1 E-Mail: Lisa@LewallenLaw.com
Lisa G. Lewallen, PLLC
2 P O Box 33430
Phoenix, Arizona 85067
3 602-743-6263
4 Attorney for Defendant Spartan Motors, Inc. and its subsidiary
Spartan Chassis, Inc.
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10 Case No.: CV05-2046-PHX-ROS
11
12
SPARTAN’S REPONSE TO
13 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
14
15
16
17
18
19 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration should be denied because: (1) the only

20
remaining claim in this case is a design defect claim pertaining to the subject
21
22 Goodyear tire involved; (2) Plaintiffs have never pled any claim against Spartan

23 related to the Goodyear tire; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to offer any proof of how
24
Spartan is jointly and severally liable for the tire involved.
25
26 This response is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
27
Authorities.
28
1 DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.

2 Lisa G. Lewallen, PLLC


3

5 By:__s/Lisa G. Lewallen
Lisa G. Lewallen
6 Attorney for Defendant Spartan Motors

8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
9
10 I. The Only Surviving Claim in this Case is a Tire Design Defect Claim
11
On March 30, 2009, this Court entered its order [Doc. 651] granting Defendant
12

13 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s (“Goodyear”) motion for summary judgment

14
[Doc. 445] in substantial part. In that order, the Court excluded all of Plaintiffs’
15

16 claims against Goodyear except a tire design defect claim. The next day, the Court

17
granted Defendant Spartan Motors, Inc.’s (“Spartan”) motion for summary judgment
18

19 in full. [Doc. 652]. Spartan filed its proposed form of judgment soon thereafter on

20 April 13, 2009. [Doc. 656].


21
II. There Is No Claim or Evidence against Spartan under this Theory
22

23 Based on the record, as of March 31, Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim in this case
24
is a tire design defect claim against Goodyear. In their motion for reconsideration,
25

26 Plaintiffs set forth a new theory of liability against Spartan in a desperate attempt to
27
keep Spartan in this case. Plaintiffs’ new theory is that Spartan is jointly and
28

2
1 severally liable under New Mexico law for the allegedly defective design of a

2 Goodyear tire because Spartan was a seller of the tire in the chain of distribution.
3
Plaintiffs’ new theory against Spartan fails for several reasons.
4

5 First, Plaintiffs’ legal authority is misplaced and/or significantly


6
distinguishable from the instant case. The New Mexico statutes and products
7

8 liability cases cited in Plaintiffs’ motion presume that a defendant in a strict product
9
liability case is appropriately in the case. None of the authority cited addresses a
10

11 situation such as the one at bar where the federal trial judge has excluded all expert
12
opinions against a defendant under either federal procedural rules (i.e. Rule 26) or
13

14 federal evidentiary law (Daubert analysis). In short, Plaintiffs’ claimed legal


15
authority is inapposite and not controlling.
16

17 Plaintiffs’ new theory against Spartan also fails because it was never pled or

18
disclosed during the four years of this litigation. After a detailed review of the entire
19

20 record and file, no claim, allegation, or evidence can be found or referenced in:

21 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Plaintiffs’ thirty-six Disclosure Statements, or Plaintiffs’


22
voluminous responses to discovery propounded by any of the defendants in this
23

24 case.
25
More importantly, in the face of Spartan’s motion for summary judgment,
26

27 Plaintiffs were required under Rules 56(c) and (e) to set forth sufficient evidence in
28

3
1 the record to support their position. There is absolutely no evidence set forth in

2 Plaintiffs’ Response to Spartan’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 576]


3
pertaining to Spartan’s alleged status as a seller in the chain of distribution of the
4

5 subject Goodyear tire. Under the rules, it was incumbent upon Plaintiffs to set forth
6
any evidence they had on this issue, and they failed to do so.
7

8 This is simply Plaintiffs’ last-ditch attempt to keep Spartan in a case that it


9
never should have been named in. Spartan has been forced to spend hundreds of
10

11 thousands of dollars defending itself over four years. For a company of this size, this
12
case has been a huge financial burden. Given today’s economy and Spartan’s specific
13

14 economic challenges, equity dictates finality for Spartan in this case. Plaintiffs have
15
no expert or surviving claim against Spartan. The Court gave thoughtful
16

17 consideration to the parties’ briefing of Spartan’s motion for summary judgment.

18
Summary judgment was granted in full. Plaintiffs’ attempts to impede Spartan’s exit
19

20 from this case should not be indulged.

21 For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration should be
22
resoundingly denied.
23

24

25
DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.
26

27 Lisa G. Lewallen, PLLC


28

4
1 By:_ s/Lisa G. Lewallen_____________________
Lisa G. Lewallen, Esq.
2 Attorney for Spartan Motors
3

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5
I hereby certify that on April 27, 2009, I electronically transmitted the attached
6 document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of
a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
7
David L. Kurtz, Esq.
8 The Kurtz Law Firm
7420 E. Pinnacle Peak Road, Suite D-128
9 Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Haeger
10
Blanca Quintero, Esq.
11 Cozen O’Connor
501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
12 San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Plaintiff Farmers Insurance
13 Company of Arizona
14 Graeme Hancock, Esq.
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
15 3003 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2600
Phoenix, AZ 85012
16 Attorneys for Defendant
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
17
Robert W. Shely, Esq.
18 Bryan Cave LLP
Two N. Central Avenue, Suite 2200
19 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Defendant Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
20

21
s/L. G. Lewallen
22

23

24

25

26

27

28