Hogan v. Keystone RV Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 8, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00414
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Oct 08, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 EDWARD HOGAN and JESSIE HOGAN, 10 husband and wife, No. 2:20-CV-00414-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER DENYING 13 KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, an Indiana DEFENDANT’S BLUE DOG 14 corporation doing business in the State of RV’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Idaho; R. ‘n’ R. R.V. HOLIDAY RV, 16 INC., an Idaho corporation doing business 17 in the State of Idaho under the assumed 18 business name of RnR RV Center; BLUE 19 DOG RV OF WASHINGTON, INC., a 20 Washington State corporation doing 21 business in the states of Washington and 22 Idaho, 23 Defendant. 24 25 Before the Court is Defendant Blue Dog RV of Washington, Inc.’s 12(b)(6) 26 Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 54. The Court held a hearing on the motion on 27 September 30, 2021, by videoconference. Plaintiffs were represented by James 28 Bendell, who appeared by telephone. Defendant Keystone RV was represented by 1 Gretchen Hoog, who appeared by telephone. Defendant RnR RV Holiday RV Inc. 2 was represented by Geoffrey Swindler, who appeared by video. Defendant Blue 3 Dog RV of Washington Inc. was represented by Kristen Price and Per Jansen, both 4 of whom appeared by video—Mr. Jansen presented arguments on behalf of Blue 5 Dog RV. The Court took the motion under advisement. Having reviewed the 6 briefing, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable caselaw, the Court denies 7 Defendant’s motion. 8 Background 9 Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s First 10 Amended Complaint, ECF No. 33. In October 2017,1 Plaintiffs Edward and Jessie 11 Hogan bought a new Keystone 5th Wheel RV from Blue Dog RV, a local RV 12 dealer located in Spokane, Washington. Plaintiffs paid $63,838.45 for the RV but 13 allege that they have been unable to use it since September 2018 due to defects in 14 the vehicle. 15 Plaintiffs allege that, after discovering the defects, they repeatedly brought 16 the RV in for repairs at RNR RV in Lewiston, Idaho, and once at Blue Dog RV in 17 Post Falls, Idaho pursuant to Defendant’s instructions. However, Plaintiffs state 18 that these repairs have been unsuccessful. Plaintiffs allege that the RV not only 19 suffers from original product defects—such as a failure of the main slide in the 20 living room to work properly—but also additional defects incurred from the 21 repairs, such as a slide guide bar that was not replaced or reinstalled, a cut to the 22 rubber seal around the smaller rollers that has left the slide open to the elements, 23 and other uninstalled items. 24 25

26 1 The date of purchase does not appear in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but 27 was included in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint and in one of Plaintiff Edward 28 Hogan’s Declarations. ECF Nos. 1-1 at 2, 13 at 2. 1 On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant 2 Keystone RV in Spokane County Superior Court. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiffs asserted 3 four claims: (1) violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), (2) 4 violation of the Uniform Commercial Code for which they request rescission and 5 damages pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-608, (3) breach of contract, and (4) 6 violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86.020, 7 19.86.093. Id. Defendant Keystone RV then removed the action to federal court on 8 November 5, 2020, on diversity jurisdiction grounds. ECF No. 1. 9 On November 12, 2020, Defendant Keystone RV filed a Partial Motion to 10 Dismiss. ECF No. 4. On February 23, 2021, the Court granted the Partial Motion to 11 Dismiss in part. ECF No. 22. Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for 12 rescission and damages under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-608, but allowed 13 Plaintiffs to keep their breach of contract claim. 14 Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Complaint on March 30, 2021, which the 15 Court granted on May 20, 2021. ECF Nos. 28, 31. Thus, Plaintiffs filed their First 16 Amended Complaint on June 15, 2021, which added two new Defendants, RNR 17 RV and Blue Dog RV; a negligence claim against Blue Dog RV and RNR RV; and 18 a claim for rescission under the MMWA against Keystone RV. ECF No. 33. 19 Defendant Blue Dog RV filed the present motion on July 30, 2021. ECF No. 20 54. Jury trial in this case is currently scheduled for June 21, 2022. ECF No. 44. 21 Legal Standard 22 Rule 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal if the plaintiff has failed 23 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 24 Dismissal under this rule is only proper if there is either a “lack of a cognizable 25 legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal 26 theory.” Taylor v. Yee, 780 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir. 2015); Balistreri v. Pacifica 27 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a 12(b)(6) 28 motion, the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes the 1 pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Lazy Y 2 Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). However, this does not 3 require the Court “to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual 4 allegations.” Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210, 1221 (9th Cir. 2020). 5 To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 6 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 7 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Levit v. Yelp!, Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th Cir. 8 2014) (requirements of notice pleading are met if plaintiff makes a short and plain 9 statement of their claims). A claim is plausible on its face when “the plaintiff 10 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 11 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 12 678 (2009). The allegations must be enough to raise the right to relief above a 13 speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 14 Discussion 15 The Court denies Defendant Blue Dog RV’s motion. Defendant argues that 16 Plaintiffs’ negligence claim is barred by the independent duty doctrine. However, 17 no Washington court has applied the independent duty doctrine to this same set of 18 facts. Moreover, the Washington State Supreme Court has cautioned that courts 19 should avoid applying the independent duty doctrine to bar tort remedies “unless 20 and until this court has, based upon considerations of common sense, justice, 21 policy and precedent, decided otherwise.” Eastwood v. Horse Harbor, 170 22 Wash.2d 380, 417 (2010) (Chambers, J., concurring). Thus, the Court declines to 23 extend state law beyond its current boundaries. The issue of whether Defendant 24 Blue Dog RV is subject to tort liability shall survive for a later stage of litigation. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant Blue Dog RV of Washington, Inc.’s 12(b)(6) Motion to 3}} Dismiss, ECF No. 54, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 5|| this Order and to provide copies to counsel. DATED this 8th day of October 2021.

8 9 ‘ Souler Eee Yoar Stanley A. Bastian 12 Chief United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT?’S BLUE DOG RV’S MOTION TO