United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
OPINION AND ORDER
D. CLARKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express warranty is
timely because the time limitation provision contained in the
Limited Warranty is unconscionable and the ...