Thomas v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. et al
Filing
19
ORDER denying 6 --motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 6/27/2016. (BK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STEVEN THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 8:16-cv-177-T-23TGW
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), Steven Thomas sues
(Doc. 1) Winnebago Industries, Inc., and Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation
for breach of written warranties on a motor home that Thomas purchased from a
third party. Under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Freightliner
moves (Doc. 6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim because Thomas “does not
plead privity with Freightliner” and because “Freightliner’s warranty does not cover”
“the claimed defects Freightliner allegedly failed or refused to adequately repair.”
1. Privity
Freightliner argues that although Thomas sues under the MMWA, Thomas
“has no independent cause of action under the MMWA” because the MMWA “only
borrows state law causes of action.” (Doc. 6 at 3) According to Freightliner, a
complaint asserting a claim under Florida law for breach of a written warranty must
allege privity between the plaintiff and the warrantor.1 (Doc. 6 at 3) Because the
complaint includes no allegation of privity between Freightliner and Thomas,
Freightliner argues that the complaint fails to state a claim. (Doc. 6 at 3)
Thomas sues under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) of the MMWA, which states:
(d) Civil action by consumer for damages, etc.; jurisdiction; recovery
of costs and expenses; cognizable claims
(1) . . . [A] consumer who is damaged by the failure of a
supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any
obligation . . . under a written warranty, implied warranty, or
service contract, may bring suit for damages. . . .
“If the terms of the statute are clear and unambiguous, the inquiry ends and we
simply give effect to the plain language of the statute.” Toomer v. City Cab, 443 F.3d
1191, 1194 (10th Cir. 2006) (Kelly, J.); accord Sides v. Macon County Greyhound Park,
Inc., 725 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2013). The MMWA expressly creates a private
right of action, by which a consumer may sue a warrantor for breach of a written
warranty.
By definition, the MMWA limits an implied-warranty claim to a claim
“arising under State law.”2 See Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F. Supp. 1513, 1525
(D.D.C. 1984) (Green, J.) (holding that, because “Congress has specifically provided
that implied warranties ‘arise’ under State law,” MMWA claims for breach of an
implied warranty must “‘originate’ from or ‘come into being’ from state law.”). The
1
See Yvon v. Baja Marine Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1184 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2007) (Hinkle,
J.) (stating that under Florida law privity is “required for actions premised on express warranties”).
2
Section 2301(7) states, “The term ‘implied warranty’ means an implied warranty arising
under State law . . . in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product.”
-2-
MMWA’s definition of “written warranty” contains no comparable limitation.3
Accordingly, Thomas’s claim for breach of a written warranty “can proceed under
the MMWA,” which “does not require privity.” In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig.,
503 F. Supp. 2d 953, 958 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (Bucklo, J.); accord Fed. Ins. Co. v. Lazzara
Yachts of N. Am., Inc., 2010 WL 1223126, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2010)
(Whittemore, J.) (“An action for breach of express warranty may be brought
pursuant to Magnuson Moss, notwithstanding a lack of transactional privity.”);
Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So. 2d 747, 750–51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (May, J.)
(holding that “the MMWA does provide an independent federal cause of action for
breach of warranty” and that a “written warranty as defined under the MMWA does
not require privity.”).
3
Section 2301(6) states:
The term “written warranty” means —
(A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise
made in connection with the sale of a consumer
product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the
nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or
promises that such material or workmanship is defect
free or will meet a specified level of performance over
a specified period of time, or
(B) any undertaking in writing in connection with the
sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund,
repair, replace, or take other remedial action with
respect to such product in the event that such product
fails to meet the specifications set forth in the
undertaking,
which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking becomes part of the
basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other
than resale of such product.
-3-
2. Warranty Coverage
Freightliner argues that the warranty “does not cover the issues with”
Thomas’s motor home that Thomas “alleges Freightliner failed or refused to
adequately repair.” (Doc. 6 at 4) Freightliner states that Thomas attached (Doc. 1-5)
to the complaint only a summary of the warranty and that the actual warranty that
“may apply to” Thomas’s motor home fails to cover the “issues [Thomas] complains
of.” (Doc. 6 at 4, 5)
No federal rule requires Thomas to attach the warranty to the complaint.
See AGSC Marine Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Underground, Inc., 2012 WL 2087441, at *2
(M.D. Fla. June 8, 2012) (Moody, J.) (“Although [a] failure [to attach a written
contract] would result in a dismissal, without prejudice, of [a] breach of contract
claim under Florida law . . . the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which apply to this
case, do not have an analogous requirement.”) (emphasis in original). Instead, under
Rule 8(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must include “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The
complaint alleges (1) that Freightliner “promised in the [written] warranty that
Freightliner would repair defects and replace defective parts” in Thomas’s motor
home (Doc. 1 ¶ 18) and (2) that Freightliner breached the warranty by failing to
repair defects in the motor home’s “alignment, jack system, electrical system, air
conditioner, slides, and interior.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 19–25) Because on a motion to dismiss
the allegations in the complaint “are accepted as true,” Key v. Lundy, 563 Fed. Appx.
-4-
758, 759 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), the complaint sufficiently states a claim under
the MMWA for breach of a written warranty.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Freightliner’s motion (Doc. 6) to dismiss is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 27, 2016.
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?