Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Libby v. Keystone RV Co.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division

October 25, 2019

DONALD LIBBY and JESSIE LIBBY, Plaintiffs,
v.
KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          MARK D. CLARKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiffs Donald and Jessie Libby bring this cause of action for breach of express and implied warranties against defendant Keystone RV Company after purchasing a fifth wheel RV trailer. Full consent to magistrate jurisdiction was entered on August 21, 2019 (#13). The case comes before the Court on a motion for summary judgment (#6) submitted by the defendant. On October 22, 2019, the Court held an oral argument hearing on the motion. For the reasons below, the defendant's motion (#6) is DENIED.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment shall be granted when the record shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The court cannot weigh the evidence or determine the truth but may only determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue of fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

         When a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 250. Conclusory allegations, unsupported by factual material, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposing party must, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Rule 56, designate specific facts which show there is a genuine issue for trial. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. In assessing whether a party has met its burden, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs purchased a new 2016 Keystone RV Cougar fifth wheel ("Fifth Wheel") on April 23, 2016. Complaint, ¶ 4. The Fifth Wheel came with a Keystone RV Limited One Year Warranty. Diaz Decl. ¶ 3. The Limited Warranty provided Plaintiffs with service and defect repair coverage for one year from the date of purchase. Id., Ex. A. It also provides:

ANY ACTION TO ENFORCE THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY SHALL NOT BE BROUGHT MORE THAN NINETY (90) DAYS AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE ONE (1) YEAR TERM OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR OF THE DATE OF BREACH, WHICHEVER IS SOONER.

         As part of the purchase transaction, plaintiffs signed a Retail Installment Contract, a purchase agreement, and Keystone RV's Retail Warranty Registration. Complaint, Ex. 4; Eldridge Decl., Exs. A, B. The Keystone RV Retail Warranty Registration that plaintiffs signed noted the purchase date was May 18, 2016. Eldridge Decl., Ex. B.

         After purchase of the vehicle, the Fifth Wheel experienced "various defects and nonconformities," which "include but are not limited to a defective roof that causes repeated leaking." Compl. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs allege that despite "being given more than a reasonable No. of attempts / reasonable opportunity to cure said defects, non-conformities, and conditions, [the defendant] failed to do so and thus the warranty failed its essential purpose." Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs claim that, as a result, the Fifth Wheel cannot be used as intended at the time of the sale, and the use and value of the Fifth Wheel has been diminished or substantially impaired. Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs filed this action on March 27, 2019. (#1).

         DISCUSSION

         The defendant brings a motion for summary judgment claiming that Plaintiffs' claims are untimely under the terms of the Limited Warranty. Plaintiffs, in response, assert that the time limitation provision contained in the Limited Warranty is unconscionable. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.

         I. Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express warranty is timely because the time limitation provision contained in the Limited Warranty is unconscionable and the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.