On December 31, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA) whereby Plaintiffs purchased all the issued and outstanding shares of 411 Flash Corporation (“Company”) from Defendant. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant breached Section 4.09 of the SPA because the repairs made to these vehicles went beyond “ordinary, routine maintenance and repairs” and they were “material in nature or cost,” all within the meaning of Section 4.09.

In support of this claim, Plaintiffs engaged an expert witness, Alyssa Nieto, whom they disclosed as a “mechanics expert.” Nieto opined that the vehicles “were not in good operating condition and in need of substantial, material repair, well beyond that which could be considered ordinary or routine that should have been communicated.”

In Section 4.09 of the Purchase Agreement, Defendant agreed, represented, and warranted that the “vehicles and other items of tangible personal property of the Company” were “structurally sound,” “in good operating condition and repair,” and “adequate for the uses to which they are being put.” Additionally, Defendant represented that “none of” the vehicles were “in need of maintenance or repairs except for ordinary, routine maintenance and repairs that are not material in nature or cost.” Despite his representations, the Company spent a total of $33,000 in repairs made to 13 vehicles transferred at the closing.

However, Defendant argued Nieto’s testimony must be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 “because her general experience managing an auto body repair shop does not qualify her to opine on specific issues of automobile mechanics,” and he further argued her opinions would not be helpful to the factfinder.

Automotive Mechanics Expert Witness

Alyssa Nieto graduated high school from Colorado Academy in Denver, Colorado, in 2014. She began her career in the automotive industry in December 2016 as a receptionist at Community Auto Repair Shop. In 2017, the owner decided to open a second location. From 2017 to 2020, she mentored under the owner/proprietor and the lead technicians, working her way from receptionist to Service Advisor. She eventually earned her role as Service Manager, where she oversaw the day-to-day operations of both locations.

Get the full story on challenges to Alyssa Nieto’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

In its own review of her report, the Court disagreed over the reliability of any methodology Nieto might have employed. Throughout her report, Nieto failed to “explain how [her] experience led to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.”

For example, Nieto opined that “[m]ost of the repairs detailed in this Report could have been prevented if the vehicles had been serviced pursuant to their factory maintenance schedule.” Here she did identify the specific factory maintenance schedule for transmission service for three of the vehicles, and then opined, “[i]f the transmissions had been serviced with fresh fluid on their regular maintenance schedule (at 60,000 miles), there would not have been metal in the fluid and could have potentially prevented internal transmission failure.” However, she did not explain her methodology supporting this opinion.

Held

In conclusion, the Court granted Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude expert testimony from Alyssa Nieto.

Key Takeaway:

Nieto has failed to demonstrate her opinion is based on any methodology that renders her opinions reliable under Rule 702. Federal courts routinely exclude as unreliable expert opinions that are based solely on the expert’s experience and which lack any methodology.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Harriman Et Al V. Smart
Docket Number:	1:22cv1883
Court:	United States District Court, Colorado
Order Date:	August 22, 2024

Category: Automotive Mechanics Expert Witness

Automotive Mechanics Expert Witness’ Testimony Rejected Because it is Based Solely on her Experience

Automotive Mechanics Expert Witness’ Testimony Rejected Because it is Based Solely on her Experience