2001-01-26 Harley-Davidson Response - Minnesota Judicial Branch

A. The Number of Parties.
The mere fact that there are 234 different claimants involved against one business hardly
argues for consolidation. Every slip and fall claim against Wal-Mart does not require consolidated
handling. There is nothing about the number of parties that makes each of these individual claims
more manageable before a single judge. If any party would be expected to request consolidated
treatment, it should be the party in common to all claims, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson. Twin
Cities Harley-Davidson opposes consolidation because of the prejudicial effects of joining the
claims as previously discussed.
B. The Nature of the Claims.
Although the claimants’ lawyers allege a “pattern and practice,” there is no evidence of it.
The depositions of all but one of the claimants has now been taken. The claims are all unique and
all rely upon alleged oral misrepresentations made by particular salespersons. (See Unger Aff., Ex.
10-12.) There are different salespeople involved in the various transactions, and no claim is made
that a written “misrepresentation” was made. The alleged oral statements are all unique. Many
claimants signed variously worded disclaimers of price guarantees. Claimants fail to cite a single
legal authority for the proposition that an allegation of “pattern and practice” is an element in any
of their causes of action. The fact is that the allegation of “pattern and practice” is irrelevant to
their causes of action. This is no longer a class action. They are individual claims.
The separate, unique, and widely varying factual bases for the claims is illustrated by
s
comparing, for sake of example, the claims of James Kinney, Terrance Carter Daniel Lund.
“&
Claimant James Kinney concedes the Twin Cities Harley-Davidson salesperson he dealt with
4Claimant Craig Smith has also been sued for declaratory judgment. His deposition is
scheduled for next week. (See Unger Affidavit.)
10
*-