Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I Marshall Meyers (020584)
2 KROHN & MOSS, LTD.
111 West Monroe, Suite 711
3 Phoenix, AZ 85003
4 (602) 275-5588; (866) 385-5215 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 LANE SENNETT ) Case No. CV 04-0161 PHX ROS I
9 ) 1
I0 Plaintiff ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE T
vs. ) FLEETWOOD’S MOTION T
ll ) SUPPLEMENT ITS MOTION FO
12 ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF) (
13 CALIFORNLA INC AND)
WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS,)
"‘ LLC, )
15 )
Defendants. i
16 ;
17 Plaintiff has no objection to Flee1.vvood’s Motion to Supplement its Motion fo
18 Summary Judgment with Chour·asio. However, if the Motion is granted, Plaintiffwoul
19
seek to file a responsive brief explaining that:
20 ;
21 1. Chourosio, which creates new Arizona law, is inapplicable to this case whic
22 is governed by Nevada law (as this Court previously held)
23
2. Chauro.si`a is admittedly opposite to the opinions of this Districtl and th i
24
25 "majority view"2;
26 Q
27 —~—» 4
28 1 Bray v Monaco, 371 P Supp.2d 1135 (D.A1iz. 2005); Muller v Winnebago, 318 F. Supp. 2 i
844 (D. Ariz 2004); De Shorzer v. National RV Holdings; Inca, 391 F Supp..2d 791 (D. A1iz.. 2
2005); Weber v Fleetwood Motor Homes oflndiona, CIV 03-2606-PI-IXAIWS (D. Ariz. 2005);
-
Case 2:04-cv—OO161—FlOS Document 163 Filed O2/13/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 3. Chcnrrosio is opposite to binding Ninth Circuit authority Milicevic v. F Zero/re
2 3
Jones Imports, Ltd., 402 F.3d 912, 919 fh. 4 (9th Cir 2005) (held manufacture 1
3 1
4 violated the Act when it failed to correct all the defects within a reasonabl
5 time, there fifty-five days; of note to this end is the fact the Ninth Circui
6 expressly recognized the district court there erroneously relied on §2304 t
7 t
8 support its ruling but held that mistake insignificant: "[w]hen the district cour
9 concluded Mercedes violated the Magnuson—Moss Warranty Act it, perhap
10 accidentally, cited Section 2304 instead of Section 23l0(d)(l). Section 2304
ll
12 applies to full warranties, not to the limited warranty between the parties here.
is Nevertheless, Section 2310(d)(l) does apply to limited written warranties an
14 "[w]e may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if` it differs Ho
16 the rationale ofthe district court") (citations omitted);
17 4. Chourusia, a State court opinion, is not binding on this United States Distric
lg Court, T illison v. Gregoire, 424 F .3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2005) (federal court no
19
bound by state court’s interpretation offederal statute); and,
20
21 5. Chourosio supports Plaintiff’s claims in this case as unlike the warranty there,
22 the instant warranty promises a defect free product and the instant Motor Hom
23
was never defect-free. 1
24
25
26 Dobbs v Monaco Coach Corporation, CV 04-002-TUC RCC (D. Ariz. 2005); and, Goelz
27 Winnebago andFr1efghtliner, CV-03-1290-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. 2005).
2 "fhe majority view is that, when a limited warranty is given to repair or replace parts, and al ;
28 efforts to comply have failed after reasonable attempts to correct the problem, claims are base j
on the state UCC. Such claims are premised on the theory that the warranty has failed of` it
essential pu1pose." Chczurcrsio at fn. 2.
-
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS Document 163 Filed O2/13/2006 Page 2 of 3

I VVherefore, if the Court allows Fleetwood to supplement, Plaintiftiprays the Cour
2 allow Plaintiffleave to file a short responsive brief.
3
4 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 13th day ofPebruary 2006.,
By: _s/Marshall Meyers 4
5 Marshall Meyer s §
6 KROHN & MOSS, LTD.,
111 West Monroe, 711
7 Phoenix, AZ 85003
8 Attorney for Plaintift"(s) €
9 Filed electronically on this 13th day of`February 2006, with: 1
10 United States District Court CM/ECP system
ll
12 Copy mailed on this 13th day ofPebruary 2006, to:
13 Hon. Roslyn O Silver
401 West Washington Street 1
M Phoenix AZ 85003-2118
15
Notification sent electronically via the Court’s ECP system and mailed on this 13th day
*6 Ottrebruary 2006 ta;
Mr. Kerry M., Griggs
lg The Cavanagh Law Firm
19 1850 North Central Avenue,
Suite 2400
20 Phoenix AZ 85004
21
David Williams
22 Bowman & Brooke, LLP r
23 2901 N. Central,
Suite 1600 *
24 Phoenix AZ 85012 i
-
5 s/Kimber] Larson ;
26 Kimberly Larson Q
27 l
28 -
Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS Document 163 Filed O2/13/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 163

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 163

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 163

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 3