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.

Roblin v. Newmar Corp.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

November 12, 2019

ROBERT ROBLIN, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
NEWMAR CORPORATION, Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER

          Michael McShane, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Robert Roblin purchased a Recreational Vehicle (“RV”) manufactured by Defendant Newmar Corp. (“Newmar”). Newmar built the RV on a chassis manufactured by Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (“FCCC”). Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on their claim under Oregon's Lemon Law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.400 et. seq., alleging that all repairs on the RV are attributable to Newmar as the manufacturer. Newmar counters that they are not responsible to repairs done to the chassis. Based on a plain reading of the statute and the fact that lemon laws are remedial statutes meant to protect consumers, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 60, is GRANTED.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). An issue is “genuine” if a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Rivera v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A fact is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the case. Id. The court reviews evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999)). When the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

         DISCUSSION

         After Plaintiff purchased the RV at issue, he immediately began experiencing mechanical difficulties.[1] It is undisputed that the RV was out of service for more than 60 days and that three or more unsuccessful attempts were made to repair the RV's cooling systems, which is part of the chassis. Compare Pl.'s Mot. for Part. Summ. J. 2-10, ECF No. 60 with Def.'s Resp. 4-12, ECF No. 76. Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment with respect to their Oregon Lemon Law claim on the basis that they have met the statute's threshold requirements and that there are no genuine issues left for trial.

         As an initial matter, Plaintiff has met the preliminary requirements under Oregon's Lemon Law. The alleged nonconformities and repairs alleged by Plaintiff occurred within two years following date of original delivery and the date on which the RV's mileage reached 24, 000, satisfying Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.402(2). Roblin Decl. ¶ 30, ECF No. 61. Plaintiff also satisfied the notification requirements under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.402(2)-(3) by continuously updating Newmar of the RV's mechanical problems via phone and email. Id. at ¶ 32; Pl.'s Mot. for Part. Summ. J. 12 tbl. 1. Plaintiff also sought alternative dispute resolution with Newmar, satisfying the final preliminary requirement under Oregon's Lemon Law. Roblin Decl. ¶¶ 33-34, Ex. 13-15.

         There are two affirmative defenses available under the statute, but neither applies here. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(4)(a) (invalidating a lemon law claim if the alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair use, market value, or safety); Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(4)(b) (invalidating a lemon law claim if the nonconformity is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations to the motor vehicle).

         Once a plaintiff has met the preliminary requirements, Oregon's Lemon Law requires the manufacturer to conform a vehicle to any applicable warranties:

If the manufacturer or agents or authorized dealers of the manufacturer are unable to conform the motor vehicle to an applicable manufacturer's express warranty by repairing or correcting a defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, market value or safety of the motor vehicle to the consumer after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall:
(a) Replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle; or
(b) Accept return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the full purchase . . . price.

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(1) (emphasis added).

         Further, an Oregon RV consumer is entitled to Oregon Lemon Law protection if they meet ...


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.