DEFICCIO et al v. WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 1/14/2014. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROBERT DEFICCIO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-7406 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE DEFENDANT, Winnebago Industries, Inc. (“Winnebago”),
now moves for summary judgment in its favor and against the
plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
56, as to the sole remaining claim for breach of the Settlement
Agreement.
(See dkt. entry no. 29, Notice of Def. Mot.)
plaintiffs oppose the Motion.
The
(See dkt. entry no. 32, Opp’n
Br.)
THE COURT earlier described the parties, events giving rise
to the remaining claim, and procedural posture of this action in
the Court’s May 21, 2012 Memorandum Opinion.
dkt. entry no. 14, 5-21-12 Mem. Op.)
(See generally
The Court assumes that the
parties are familiar with the contents of the Court’s May 21,
2012 Memorandum Opinion and will not repeat them here.
id.)
(See
We now summarize any additional facts deemed germane to
the instant dispute.
WINNEBAGO argues that it should be granted judgment on the
plaintiffs’ remaining claim for breach of the Settlement
Agreement because there is no genuine issue of material fact as
to whether Winnebago breached the Settlement Agreement.
dkt. entry no. 29-1, Def. Br. at 5.)
(See
In particular, Winnebago
argues:
[U]nder the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
Defendant Winnebago had only two obligations: (1)
paying Plaintiffs $17,500.00 in cash; and (2)
performing certain repairs identified in the
Settlement Agreement “to commercially reasonable
standards”. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Winnebago
paid the $17,500.00 in settlement funds and that
Defendant undertook repairs to the vehicle pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the only issue
in dispute is whether Winnebago performed the repairs
to the vehicle to “commercially reasonable standards”
as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. As set
forth more fully below, Plaintiffs cannot create a
genuine issue of material fact because: (1) expert
proof is required to demonstrate that the repairs were
not performed to “commercially reasonable standards;”
(2) the only “expert” proof submitted by Plaintiffs
should be disregarded as unreliable; and (3)
plaintiffs are not qualified to offer testimony
regarding the sufficiency of the repairs. Therefore,
Winnebago’s motion for summary judgment must be
granted.
(Id. at 5-6 (citations omitted).)
THE COURT has determined that the issue regarding the
reliability of the opinions of plaintiffs’ expert witness should
be resolved before the Court considers Winnebago’s Motion.
good cause appearing, the Court will thus deny Winnebago’s
2
For
Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice and direct that
Winnebago move to strike the opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert
witness.
See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)
(recognizing Court’s inherent power to control the docket); Rolo
v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 702 (3d Cir. 1991) (same).
Winnebago may move anew for relief pursuant to Rule 56 following
the Court’s resolution of the issue regarding the reliability of
the expert’s opinion.
THE COURT will enter an appropriate Order.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: January 14, 2014
3
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?