Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01127/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01127-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liabilty
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Property Damage (P.I.)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CASE NO. CV-F-06-1127-LJO-DLB

CO., 

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

vs.

INTERMATIC INCORPORATED and

COMBS DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

I. INTRODUCTION

In this subrogation action, Defendants Intermatic Incorporated and Combs Development, Inc.

(collectively “Intermatic”) filed a motion in limine to exclude any evidence of other incidents involving

Intermatic products, specifically Intermatic pool timers (“other incidents”), that Plaintiff Nationwide

Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) may seek to introduce at the October 22, 2007 jury trial.

A hearing on this motion in limine took place on September 25, 2007 at 8:30 a.m in Courtroom 4 (LJO).

Plaintiff Nationwide appeared by telephone by counsel Colin Hatcher, Cholakian and Associates.

Defendants Intermatic and Combs Development, Inc. appeared by counsel Sheldon Warren, Law Offices

of Sheldon Warren. Having considered the arguments on the record, as well as the written points and

authorities submitted by counsel, this Court GRANTS Intermatic’s motion in limine to exclude all

evidence of other incidents of Intermatic pool timers for all purposes. 

II. BACKGROUND

This is a subrogation action filed by Nationwide as a result of a loss arising out of a fire that

occurred on August 5, 2004. Nationwide claims the fire was caused by a defective Intermatic pool timer

designed and manufactured by Intermatic Incorporated and sold to Nationwide’s insureds by Combs

Case 1:06-cv-01127-LJO-DLB Document 39 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Development, Inc. Nationwide paid its insureds pursuant to an insurance policy and now seeks to

recover those monies from Intermatic. The parties stipulated to damages in the amount of $76,000, but

dispute liability. Nationwide claims the Intermatic pool timer was defective in both manufacture and

design. Intermatic denies that the pool timer was defective and further denies that the pool timer caused

the subject fire. 

Intermatic filed this motion in limine on September 10, 2007. Nationwide filed its response on

September 17, 2007. The motion in limine hearing took place on September 25, 2007. A 4-day jury trial

is scheduled to begin on October 22, 2007. 

III. DISCUSSION

Anticipating that Nationwide may attempt to introduce evidence of other incidents allegedly

involving Intermatic pool timers at trial, Intermatic sought an order from this Court excluding such

evidence on the grounds that it is irrelevant, unreliable, and inadmissible. Further, Intermatic argued

that Nationwide “simply cannot establish substantial similarity between the case at hand and any other

incident,” because Nationwide did not identify any other incidents with Intermatic pool timers in the

Joint Pretrial Statement or in the expert witness reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In written

response, Nationwide acknowledged Intermatic’s contention that no evidence of other incidents had been

produced, but did not identify any evidence of other incidents involving Intermatic pool timers. At the

hearing, Nationwide admitted that it was not aware of any other incidents and it was not aware that any

such evidence had been discovered. Because no evidence of other incidents has been produced or

discovered, Nationwide may not attempt to introduce any evidence of other incidents at trial. 

 

VI. PROPOSED CONCLUSION

Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, this Court GRANTS Intermatic’s motion to exclude evidence

of other incidents involving Intermatic pool timers for all purposes. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01127-LJO-DLB Document 39 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2