Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedNovember 3, 2021
Docket2:18-cv-01710
StatusUnknown

This text of Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., (D. Nev. 2021).

Opinion

GEORGE O. WEST III [SBN 7951] 1 Law Offices of George O. West III Consumer Attorneys Against Auto Fraud 2 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 3 gowesq@cox.net www.americasautofraudattorney.com 4 www.nevadasautofraudattorney.com 5 (702)664-1168 (702)664-0459 [fax] 6 RONALD BURDGE, ESQ (Pro Hac Vice) 7 Ohio SNB 0015609 Burdge Law Office Co LPA 8 8250 Washington Village Drive 9 Dayton, Ohio 45458-1850 Ron@burdgelaw.com 10 www.ohiolemonlaw.com (937)432-9500 11 (937)432-9503 [fax] 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 GORDON WOOD 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 17 GORDON WOOD, an Individual Case No: 2:18-cv-01710-JCM-BNW Plaintiff 18 -VS. - JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER 19 20 WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC., 21 Defendant 22 __________________________/ 23 24 After pretrial proceedings in this case, 25 IT IS ORDERED: 26 1 27 1 1. Nature of action and the parties’ contention: 2 This is an action for: breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Nev. Rev. 3 Stat. Ann. 104.2314 and involves the purchase of a new Winnebago Grand Tour 4 recreational vehicle (the RV).1 5 The parties agree that by operation of law Defendant provided an implied warranty 6 of merchantability on the RV involved in this case. 7 The parties agree that to prevail on a breach of implied warranty of merchantability 8 Plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that when the RV was tendered 9 to Plaintiff it was not merchantable and Plaintiff suffered damages as a result. 10 Plaintiff contends that the RV was not merchantable and Defendant contends that 11 it was merchantable. 12 Plaintiff contends that he has suffered damages and seeks recovery of his damages. 13 Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not suffered damages and that even if Plaintiff did 14 suffer damages Plaintiff’s recovery of damages is limited by the terms of Defendant’s 15 written warranty which contains a contractual modification or limitation of remedy, under 16 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 104.2719, to “money damages in an amount equal to the reasonable 17 cost for material and labor necessary to correct the defect or defects upon which the finding 18 of breach of implied warranty is based.” 19 Plaintiff contends that the implied warranty of merchantability failed its essential 20 purpose, thereby triggering nullification of the contractual modification or limitation of 21 remedy by operation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 104.2719(2).2 Defendant contends that the 22 implied warranty did not fail its essential purpose and therefore the statutory nullification 23 is not operative here. Defendant also contends that the Court ruled on this question in its

24 1 As originally filed the Complaint also included claims for breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Nevada Deceptive Trade 25 Practices Act but those claims were dismissed by the Court via Winnebago’s motions for summary judgment. 26 2 “Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this chapter.” 27 2

28 1 March 23, 2020 Order at pages 10-11, ECF Doc 41. Plaintiff contends those pages of ECF 2 Doc 41 were with regard to the Defendant’s express written warranty and are not 3 applicable to the remedy for a statutory implied warranty breach. 4 The parties agree that for the RV to be merchantable under Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 5 104.2314, it must be at least such as: 6 (a)Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, and 7 (b)Is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. 8 2. Statement of jurisdiction: 9 Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Nevada and Defendant is a resident of Iowa and 10 has its principal place of business in Iowa. The parties agree this Court has jurisdiction 11 over this action based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). 12 3. Uncontested material facts: 13 1. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 14 15 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 16 3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court, District of Nevada. 17 4. Plaintiff purchased the RV from a “merchant” as defined in Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 18 104.2104(1). 19 5. The sale of the RV to Plaintiff came with an implied warranty of merchantability 20 from Winnebago as defined in Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 104.2104(1). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 28 1 6. Defendant is a “merchant” as defined in Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 104.2104(1).3 2 7. Plaintiff did bring the RV to one of Winnebago’s authorized service centers, 3 Camping World, for warranty repairs within the time frame when the implied 4 warranty of merchantability was in force and active. 5 8. Some of the alleged issues and problems with the RV that are the subject of this 6 Action which were reported to Camping World by Plaintiff fell within the 7 purview of Winnebago’s implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff 8 9 requested the RV be repaired at an authorized Winnebago dealership, Camping 10 World, for defects in the subject RV in October 2017. 11 9. Plaintiff sent a written response to an opinion survey to Winnebago in 12 December 2017. Plaintiff sent an email to Winnebago on February 13, 2018. 13 Plaintiff, through an attorney, sent a letter to Winnebago on March 31, 2018. 14 These communications occurred while the RV was still at Camping World. 15 10. Plaintiff received possession of the RV on July 10, 2018. 16 17 11. Plaintiff sent no written communication to Winnebago after July 10, 2018. 18 12. This case was filed in Court on July 31, 2018. 19 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence 20 to the contrary: 21

22 3 Under NV law, a buyer of a good under Nevada's UCC is not required to have privity of contract with the seller to enable the buyer to sue the manufacturer of the good for breach of implied warranty. While 23 Winnebago was not the "seller" of the RV, Plaintiff, under Nevada law, can maintain a claim for breach of implied warranty against Winnebago as privity is not a requirement in Nevada See Vacation Vill., Inc. v. 24 Hitachi Am., Ltd., 110 Nev. 481, 485–86, 874 P.2d 744, 747 (1994); Hiles Co. v. Johnston Pump Co. of Pasadena, Cal., 93 Nev. 73, 78–79, 560 P.2d 154, 157–58 (1977); In re Wirsbo Non-F1807 YBFs, No. 08- 25 CV-1223-F, 2013 WL 12315106, at *5–6 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2013); Reed v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 317CV00337LRHWGC, 2017 WL 4560140, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 11, 2017); Herz v. Dynamax Corp., No. 26 307CV00289BESRAM, 2009 WL 10696283, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 12, 2009); Matanky v. Gen. Motors LLC, 370 F. Supp. 3d 772, 787–88 (E.D. Mich. 2019) [interpreting Nevada law]. 27 4

28 1 13. Neither Camping World nor Giant RV are agents of defendant. 2 14.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vacation Village, Inc. v. Hitachi America, Ltd.
874 P.2d 744 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1994)
Hiles Co. v. Johnston Pump Co. of Pasadena
560 P.2d 154 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1977)
Matanky v. Gen. Motors LLC
370 F. Supp. 3d 772 (E.D. Michigan, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wood v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-winnebago-industries-inc-nvd-2021.