Wetterman v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. CIV. 00-6257-AA.
Decision Date | 19 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. CIV. 00-6257-AA. |
Citation | 141 F.Supp.2d 1263 |
Parties | Nola R. WETTERMAN, Plaintiff, v. MONACO COACH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and Guaranty RV, Inc., fka Guaranty Chevrolet Pontiac Oldsmobile, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Jerry C. Goodman, Jerry C. Goodman, P.C., Eugene, OR, for plaintiff.
Charles D. Carlson, Brown Roseta Long McConville, Kilcullen & Carlson, Eugene, OR, for defendant Guaranty RV, Inc.
William H. Martin, Gleaves Swearingen Larsen, Potter Scott & Smith, LLP, Eugene, OR, for defendant Monaco Coach Corporation.
This is an action for unlawful trade practices, fraud, breach of express and implied warranty, and breach of contract in connection with defendants' sale of a used motor home to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that defendants sold her the motor home without disclosing hidden defects in its design, workmanship, and materials. Furthermore, defendants have not succeeded in repairing such defects, despite repeated efforts continuing through May 2, 2000. Plaintiff's alleged damages comprise loss of use and enjoyment, repair costs, and substitute transportation costs totaling not less than $866,463.70.
Plaintiff now seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint adding the allegation that an additional defect in the motor home is its 45-foot length, which exceeds length restrictions imposed by many states' departments of motor vehicles. According to plaintiff, defendants concealed the length restrictions, which deprive her of use and enjoyment of the vehicle. Defendants oppose the amendment.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given when justice so requires." The rule and relevant caselaw evince a "strong policy to permit the amending of pleadings." Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1392 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotes and citations omitted). The court must weigh several factors when considering a motion to amend: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, (3) prejudice to the opponent, and (4) futility of amendment. Id. (quoting Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 785 F.2d 762, 766 (9th Cir.1986)). "A proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir.1988).
Plaintiff's proffered amendment is futile. Oregon substantive law controls here. See Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ( ). No Oregon law prohibits a properly licensed driver from operating or registering a 45-foot motor home. Also, plaintiff fails to provide authority for the proposition that sellers of recreational vehicles must disclose to potential buyers use restrictions employed by Oregon and every other state or territory. Plaintiff does not allege that the motor home's length was a defect per se, but rather that this aspect of the vehicle's design hindered plaintiff's plan to use the vehicle for nationwide travel.
With respect to sales transactions (primarily involving real estate), Oregon courts have long imposed upon purchasers a duty of due diligence or "requirement to investigate." See, e.g., Soursby v. Hawkins, 307 Or. 79, 86, 763 P.2d 725 (1988) () (quoting Miller v. Protrka, 193 Or. 585, 597, 238 P.2d 753 (1951)); Murray v. Wiley, 169 Or. 381, 405, 127 P.2d 112 (1942) (). Soursby also held that, "If the parties do not have equal knowledge of the facts and the speaker holds himself out as having a superior ability to make an accurate representation, reliance may be reasonable." Soursby, 307 Or. at 86, 763 P.2d 725. Furthermore, "[w]hen a requirement to investigate arises, it is limited to exercising `reasonable diligence' or conducting a `reasonable inquiry.'" Id. at 87, 763 P.2d 725 (quoting Stevens v. American Sav. Institution, Inc., 289 Or. 349, 357-58, 613 P.2d 1057 (1980); Miller v. Protrka, 193 Or. at 598, 238 P.2d 753; Fairbanks v. Johnson, 117 Or. 362, 367, 243 P. 1114 (1926)).
Applying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fulton v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC
...e.g., Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying Miller's "no set of facts"); Wetterman v. Monaco Coach Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1264-65 (D. Or. 2001) (same). As the Miller court notes, the "no set of facts" standard for futility was designed to match the stand......
-
Gemini Ins. Co. v. W. Marine Ins. Servs. Corp., 210-cv-03172-KJM-JFM
...alleged defense is a question of substance; thus, Illinois state law is controlling for that issue alone. Wetterman v. Monaco Coach Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1264 (D. Or. 2001) (citing Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) for principle that when determining futility of an amendmen......