Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

Decision Date15 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. 1:05-CV-389-TS.,1:05-CV-389-TS.
Citation542 F.Supp.2d 869
PartiesSalvatore CIMINO and Josephine Cimino, Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc., and Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
OPINION & ORDER

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Court.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 60] and Motion to Strike [DE 69], as well as Defendants Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 63] and Motion to Bar Evidence [DE 73]. The briefing on these motions has concluded, and the motions are ripe for ruling.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, suing Defendant Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. ("Fleetwood Enterprises") for replacement of the motor home they purchased from Fleetwood Enterprises or for repayment of the purchase price less reasonable wear and tear pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2302, 2310. Fleetwood Enterprises removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Florida on September 13, 2005, asserting that subject-matter jurisdiction existed under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1)(B). On October 18, 2005, Defendant Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc. ("Fleetwood Motor Homes")1 was added and venue was transferred to this Court.

Fleetwood Motor Homes answered the complaint on January 5, 2006. On that same date, Fleetwood Enterprises moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because they contended that they were not a "warrantor" under the MMWA. The Plaintiffs responded to Fleetwood Enterprises' motion to dismiss on January 17, 2006, and argued that Fleetwood Enterprises is a proper party as a parent company and that the motion to dismiss raised a defense to the claim instead of a basis for dismissal. On February 3, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed responses, to Fleetwood Motor Homes' affirmative defenses.

On May 15, 2006, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a count against Freightliner, LLC. The Court granted the motion on May 16, 2006. On July 7, 2006, the Court ordered the parties to further brief and submit evidence with regard to the Court's exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction, as no party had alleged the cost of the replacement vehicle, minus both the present value of the allegedly defective vehicle and the value that the Plaintiff received from the vehicle. On September 7, 2006, Freightliner, LLC answered the amended complaint. On September 28, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to amend their complaint to reflect that Freightliner, LLC was actually Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation ("Freightliner"). The Court granted the motion the same day. Also on that date, the Plaintiffs responded to Freightliner's affirmative defenses. Freightliner answered the second amended complaint on October 25, 2006.

Because Fleetwood Enterprises' motion to dismiss had not been refiled or renewed since the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot on May 29, 2007.

Freightliner filed a motion for summary judgment on June 1, 2007, arguing that because the Plaintiffs are unable to determine the existence of or cause of the alleged problems with their motor home, they cannot establish that they have been damaged and that Freightliner breached its express warranty. Fleetwood Enterprises and Fleetwood Motor Homes also filed a motion for summary judgment on June 1, 2007, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not established that the alleged defects are caused by the failure of a Fleetwood Enterprises or Fleetwood Motor Homes warranted part, that Fleetwood Enterprises or Fleetwood Motor Homes failed to repair the alleged defective part, or that the Plaintiffs have sustained any damages resulting from any breach of warranty by Fleetwood Enterprises or Fleetwood Motor Homes.

The Plaintiffs responded to both motions for summary judgment in a single memorandum on July 2, 2007. Freightliner moved to strike Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7 on July 17, 2007, and it replied to the Plaintiffs' response to its motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2007. Fleetwood Enterprises and Fleetwood Motor Homes replied to the Plaintiffs' response to their motion for summary judgment on July 17, 2007. On July 23, 2007, Fleetwood Enterprises and Fleetwood Motor Homes moved to strike a driver's report and a statement from an unnamed Freightliner technician submitted by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs responded to Freightliner's motion to strike on August 1, 2007, and Fleetwood Enterprises and Fleetwood Motor Homes' motion to strike on August 7, 2007. Freightliner replied on August 8, 2007.

On November 20, 2007, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties and set a date for a ruling conference. On January 25, 2008, the Court conferenced with the parties to correct a clerical error on the docket terminating Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., and to alert the parties to the fact that the Court could not rule on the motions for summary judgment until Fleetwood Enterprises and Fleetwood Motor Homes filed an answer to the amended complaint. Fleetwood Enterprises and Fleetwood Motor Homes answered the second amended complaint on January 28, 2008.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that motions for summary judgment be granted "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Rule 56(c) further requires the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery, against a party "who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

A court's role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence, to judge the credibility of witnesses, or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.1994). To determine whether any genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must pierce the pleadings and assess the proof as presented in depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits that are part of the record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), Advisory Committee Notes, 1963 Amendments. The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In response, the nonmoving party cannot rest on bare pleadings alone but must use the evidentiary tools listed above to designate specific material facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 216 F.3d 596, 598 (7th Cir.2000).

A material fact must be outcome determinative under the governing law. Insolia, 216 F.3d at 598-99. Although a bare contention that an issue of fact exists is insufficient to create a factual dispute, the Court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party as well as view all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Bellaver v. Quanex Corp., 200 F.3d 485, 492 (7th Cir.2000). The Court must consider the evidence as a jury might, "construing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and avoiding the temptation to decide which party's version of the facts is more likely true." Shepherd v. Slater Steels Corp., 168 F.3d 998, 1009 (7th Cir.1999). The Court may not grant summary judgment "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Pursuant to local rule, the Court is to assume that the facts claimed by the moving party and supported by admissible evidence are admitted to exist without controversy, except to the extent such facts are controverted in a "Statement of Genuine Issues" filed in opposition to the motion and supported by admissible evidence. N.D. Ind. L.R. 56.1(b).

FACTS

Construing all facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, and drawing all legitimate inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the following facts are assumed true for the purposes of summary judgment.

A. Motor Home Purchase

The Plaintiffs in this case are motor home enthusiasts. They have owned a total of five motor homes between 1974 and the initiation of this suit, three of which have been American Eagle Coaches assembled by Fleetwood Enterprises or their subsidiaries.2 The newest of these three American Eagle Coaches, a 2004 model, is the subject of this lawsuit. Fleetwood Motor Homes, a subsidiary of Fleetwood Enterprises, was the final stage manufacturer of the 2004 American Eagle Coach that is in dispute. Fleetwood Motor Homes manufactured and assembled the motor home in Indiana, and it incorporated a chassis that was assembled by Freightliner. Freightliner had no involvement in the manufacturer or assembly of the motor home beyond supplying the chassis and chassis battery. The Plaintiffs purchased the motor home on July 7, 2004,3 from Tom Johnson Camping Center in North Carolina for $382,713.

Shortly after purchasing the motor home, the Plaintiffs began...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • In re Caterpillar, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • July 29, 2015
    ...James J. White & Robert S. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, Hornbook Series 603 (6th ed. 2010)); Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 869, 888 (N.D. Ind. 2008) ("Plaintiffs in this case have designated admissible evidence that, if believed by a reasonable jury, could esta......
  • Litsinger v. Forest River, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • April 30, 2021
    ...See Zylstra v. Drv, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86341, 15 (N.D. Ind. May 18, 2020) (Lee, J.) (citing Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 542 F. Supp.2d 869, 882 (N.D. Ind. 2008) (Springmann, J.)); see also Mathews v. REV Rec. Grp., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55374, 13-14 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 2, 20......
  • Shea v. Gen. Motors LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • October 14, 2021
    ...remedy fails its essential purpose when application of the remedy will not further the warranty's purpose. Cimino v. Fleetwood Enters. , 542 F. Supp.2d 869, 887 (N.D. Ind. 2008) (citing Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc. , 621 N.E.2d 1078, 1085 (Ind. 1993) ). A limited remedy doesn't ......
  • Martin v. Thor Motor Coach Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • May 6, 2022
    ...its purpose. See id. at 1085-86 ; Smith v. Nexus RVs LLC , 468 F. Supp.3d 1012, 1024 (N.D. Ind 2020) ; Cimino v. Fleetwood Enters. , 542 F. Supp.2d 869, 887 (N.D. Ind. 2008)."Warranties are designed to market products, provide a remedy for defective ones, and protect a manufacturer—they ser......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 books & journal articles
  • Private Sector Business Records
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part II - Documentary Evidence
    • July 31, 2015
    ...But for the inadequate foundation, we should assume the list might have been admitted.] 155 Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. , 542 F.Supp.2d 869 (N.D.Ind., 2008). Buyers filed suit against mobile home and chassis manufacturers seeking replacement of their motor homes (or repayment of t......
  • Private sector business records
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part II. Documentary evidence
    • May 1, 2022
    ...But for the inadequate foundation, we should assume the list might have been admitted.] 173 Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. , 542 F.Supp.2d 869 (N.D.Ind., 2008). Buyers filed suit against mobile home and chassis manufacturers seeking replacement of their motor homes (or repayment of t......
  • Private Sector Business Records
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Documentary evidence
    • July 31, 2017
    ...But for the inadequate foundation, we should assume the list might have been admitted.] 167 Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. , 542 F.Supp.2d 869 (N.D.Ind., 2008). Buyers filed suit against mobile home and chassis manufacturers seeking replacement of their motor homes (or repayment of t......
  • Private Sector Business Records
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part II - Documentary Evidence
    • July 31, 2014
    ...But for the inadequate foundation, we should assume the list might have been admitted.] 155 Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. , 542 F.Supp.2d 869 (N.D.Ind., 2008). Buyers filed suit against mobile home and chassis manufacturers seeking replacement of their motor homes (or repayment of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT