United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub Magistrate Judge
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING AND PARTIALLY DENYING
DEFENDANT THOR MOTOR COACH'S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF. NO.
10] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT GENERAL RV CENTER INC.'S
MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF. No. 11]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
diversity action surrounds a new 2018 Thor Four Winds 35SB
class C motorhome (“Motorhome”). Pincast, LLC
(“Pincast”) sues Thor Motor Coach
(“Thor”) and General RV Center, Inc.
bought the Motorhome from General RV on July 3, 2017. Pincast
and General RV executed a Purchase Agreement at the time of
sale. Thor, the manufacturer of the Motorhome, guaranteed a
limited warranty on the chassis. Pincast received and signed
documents acknowledging these facts when it purchased the
after, Pincast discovered defects in the chassis portion of
the Motorhome. On July 20, 2017, Pincast reported the defects
to General RV. Several times, General RV and Thor attempted
repairs. Problems persisted.
5, 2018, more than a year after Pincast purchased the
Motorhome, Thor wrote Pincast a letter offering a new limited
warranty if Pincast relinquished any claims stemming from
prior defects or repairs. Pincast rejected this offer.
Pincast filed a consumer complaint against Thor under
Utah's lemon law on October 1, 2018.
first filed this action in state court on February 26, 2019,
it was removed here.
sues Thor for: (I) relief under Utah's “lemon law,
” (II) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, (III) breach of express warranty and
breach of contract, and (IV) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability. It sues General RV only for Counts II and
IV, breach of implied warranties.
and General RV move to dismiss Pincast's claims.
following reasons, the Court GRANTS General
RV's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Court GRANTS
Thor's motion to dismiss in part and
DENIES it in part.
survive a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party must allege
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The facts
must be construed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Power & Tel. Supply Co. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. 447 F.3d 923, 929- 30 (6th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272
F.3d 356, 360 (6th Cir. 2001)). Failure to respond to a
motion to dismiss is not fatal to the nonmoving party if the
pleadings state a plausible claim for relief.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
RV's Purchase Agreement and Thor's Limited Warranty
both contain choice of law provisions. Federal courts sitting
in diversity apply the choice of law principles of the forum
state. Wallace Hardware Co. v. Abrams, 223 F.3d 383,
391 (6th Cir. 2000).
parties do not dispute the choice of law clauses; however,
because the laws of different jurisdictions apply to General
RV and Thor, and to Count I and the rest of the claims, the
Court sets forth the applicable law for each claim.
General RV's Purchase Agreement
RV's Purchase Agreement has a choice of forum clause and
choice of law clause that gives the Eastern District of
Michigan jurisdiction. This selection clause is valid.
Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for
the Western Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 66 (2013).
Michigan contract law applies to the dispute between Pincast
and General RV. Michels v. Monaco Coach Corp., 298
F.Supp.2d 642, 645 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2003), citing
Meridian Mutual Ins. v. Kellman, 197 F.3d 1178, 1181
(6th Cir. 1999).
Thor's Limited Warranty
Limited Warranty has a choice of law clause. It specifies
that Indiana law governs disputes related to alleged breach
of warranty. [ECF No. 10-1, PageID.85] Indiana law applies to
Counts II, III, and IV against Thor.
Utah Lemon Law
is a statutory claim under Utah's “lemon
law.” Utah substantive law applies to this claim.
However, the language of the choice of law clause includes
tort actions and statutory claims related to the Limited
Warranty. While Utah law governs substantive aspects of Count
I, Indiana law applies to procedural aspects.
Court addresses the motions separately.
sues General RV for breach of implied warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose (Count II) and breach of implied
warranty of merchantability (Count IV). General RV says it
disclaimed any warranties in its Purchase Agreement, and
Pincast has no claim against it.
did not respond to General RV's motion to dismiss. Thus,
it appears that Pincast abandons these claims. The Court can
dismiss Pincast's claims against General RV pursuant to
F. R. Civ. P 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR. 41.2 for failure to
the Court finds that Pincast fails to plausibly state claims
upon which relief can be granted against General RV.
RV sold the Motorhome to Pincast through its sole member and
agent, Paul Southam, who signed General RV's ...