United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS[#6]AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
action centers around an allegedly defective recreational
vehicle that was sold to Plaintiff Geraldine Miller by
Defendant General RV Center (“GRV”) and
manufactured by Defendant Thor Motor Coach
(“Thor”). Plaintiff filed the instant action
against Defendants on January 11, 2019 in Ohio state court.
ECF No. 1. An Amended Complaint was filed on January 21, 2019
alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
Ohio Lemon Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Ohio
Uniform Commercial Code, implied warranty and tort, and
declaratory judgment. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.18.
before the Court is Defendant Thor's Motion to Dismiss
and Defendant GRV's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos.
7, 8. While Defendant GRV purports to move for summary
judgment in the title of its motion, the language utilized
throughout the motion indicates that GRV is effectively
moving for dismissal. See, e.g., ECF No. 7,
PageID.153, 164-165, 168. The Court will accordingly address
Defendant GRV's filing as a Motion to Dismiss.
review of the Defendants' submissions and the
Plaintiff's failure to respond, the Court concludes that
oral argument will not aid in the disposition of this matter.
Therefore, the Court will resolve the instant motion on the
briefs. See E.D. Mich. L.R. § 7.1(f)(2). For
the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT both of
Defendants' motions and dismiss the case with prejudice.
January 13, 2017, Plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle
(“RV”) from Defendant GRV at a trade show in
Cleveland, Ohio. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.8. The RV was a new 2017
Thor Motor Coach 3901 Aria motorhome that was manufactured by
Defendant Thor. Id. The final purchase price of the
vehicle was $202, 076. Id. As part of the
transaction, Plaintiff traded in a 2013 Cadillac SRX
appraised at $21, 000. Id. at PageID.28.
alleges that, upon agreement to purchase the vehicle, she was
given various forms “to sign without any explanation or
opportunity to read the forms.” Id. at
PageID.8. During the transfer hearing in June, however, the
Ohio state court found that Plaintiff had signed, initialed,
and agreed to all of the sales transaction forms, referred to
collectively as the Purchase Agreement. In fact, the Ohio
court found that “Plaintiff attested and initialed in
no fewer than five places that she was given an opportunity
to, and did, review and understand the purchase documents.
Among other things, Plaintiff acknowledged that she was not
rushed into signing anything.” ECF No. 2, PageID.36.
Many documents within the Purchase Agreement contain language
pertinent to Plaintiff's claims, including one with a
provision directly above Plaintiff's signature:
THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN GENERAL RV AND PURCHASER. NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY TO
MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION BEYOND THIS AGREEMENT. NO OTHER
REPRESENTATIONS OR INDUCEMENTS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN HAVE BEEN
MADE, WHICH ARE NOT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT. PURCHASER HAS
NOT RELIED ON ANYTHING WRITTEN INTO THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT
SUCH THAT NOTHING ELSE IS THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN OR IS
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST GENERAL RV, EVEN IF ALLEGED TO BE A
MISREPRESENTATION. BY SIGNING BELOW, PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT PURCHASER HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT
PURCHASER HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THOSE PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE, WHICH
INCLUDE AN “AS IS” CLAUSE, A NONREFUNDABLE
DEPOSIT STATEMENT, AND A CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM
SELECTION CLAUSES INDICATING THAT MICHIGAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL
POTENTIAL DISPUTES AND THAT ALL CLAIMS MUST BE FILED IN
ECF No. 1-1, PageID.28 (emphasis added).
additionally claims that Defendants engaged in deceptive
trade practices and did not integrate the entire purchase
agreement. Further, when Plaintiff took the RV to be repaired
for an undisclosed issue, Defendants allegedly failed to
perform repairs on the vehicle in a timely or workmanlike
manner, among other claims. Id. at PageID.9.
initiated this action in Ohio state court on January 11,
2019. See ECF No. 1-1. On February 14, 2019,
Defendants removed the action to federal court in the
Northern District of Ohio. ECF No. 1. The matter was
subsequently transferred to this Court on June 25, 2019 in
accordance with a forum selection clause within the vehicle
purchase agreement. ECF No. 2, PageID.36. Defendants then
filed the present motions on July 16, 2019. ECF Nos. 7, 8.
Plaintiff received verification of certificate of service on
July 18, 2019 but failed to respond to either motion. ECF No.