Lee v. Forest River, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv02103 - Document 28 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff's claims for redhibition, lender liability, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claim for negligent repair is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/28/2017. (blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lee v. Forest River, Inc. et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAVID E. LEE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-210 3 FOREST RIVER, INC., ET AL. SECTION “R” (4) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants Forest River, Inc., Dixie Motors, Inc., and Bank of Am erica, National Association, move to dism iss plaintiff’s com plaint. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of the sale of an allegedly defective recreational vehicle (RV). 2 On Septem ber 14, 20 13, plaintiff bought a new 20 14 Coachm an Leprechaun from Defendant Dixie Motors, LLC. 3 The purchase was financed by Defendant Bank of Am erica, National Association. 4 Defendants Forest River, Inc. and General Motors, LLC each allegedly m anufactured components of the vehicle. 5 1 2 3 4 5 Plaintiff asserts that the R. Doc. 17. R. Doc. 1. Id. at 3 ¶ 9. Id. at 7 ¶ 33. Id. at 5 ¶ 23. Dockets.Justia.com Coachm an Leprechaun was defective in m aterials and workm anship at the tim e of delivery. 6 Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the RV has experienced problem s with the engine not starting and dying out, water leaks from the air conditioner, electrical defects, and engine defects. 7 On March 14, 20 17, plaintiff filed a com plaint in this Court asserting federal claim s for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state law claim s for redhibition, lender liability, and negligent repair. 8 On September 14, 20 17, the Court dism issed with prejudice plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim against Forest River insofar as the claim relates to an express warranty as to the defects identified in the original com plaint. 9 The Court dism issed without prejudice plaintiff’s claims for redhibition, lender liability, and other violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and granted plaintiff 21 days to am end his com plaint. 10 Plaintiff’s claim for negligent repair against Forest River and Dixie Motors was not the subject of defendants’ original m otion to dism iss, 11 and was not dism issed. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Id. at 4 ¶ 17. Id. at 4-5 ¶ 17. Id. at 5-9. R. Doc. 16 at 12. Id. R. Doc. 10 -1. 2 Plaintiff did not file an am ended com plaint. On October 12, 20 17, plaintiff re-filed his claim s for redhibition and lender liability in Louisiana state court. 12 On Novem ber 13, 20 17, plaintiff and General Motors stipulated to the dism issal with prejudice of all claim s against General Motors. 13 The rem aining defendants now m ove to dism iss plaintiff’s com plaint with prejudice. 14 II. D ISCU SSION The Court dism issed plaintiff’s claim s for redhibition, lender liability, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as tim e-barred because the com plaint failed to allege sufficient facts to indicate that the prescriptive period was interrupted by repair attem pts. 15 Plaintiff requested leave to am end his com plaint, 16 and the Court granted him 21 days to amend. 17 Plaintiff failed to am end his complaint within the tim e provided. Because plaintiff was provided an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his com plaint and failed to do so, the Court dism isses these claim s with 12 13 14 15 16 17 R. Doc. 20 at 2; R. Doc. 20 -1. R. Doc. 27. R. Doc. 17. R. Doc. 16 at 7-11. R. Doc. 15 at 23. R. Doc. 16 at 12. 3 prejudice. See, e.g., Spiller v. City of Tex. City , Police Dep’t, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirm ing dism issal of claim with prejudice because plaintiff failed to take advantage of opportunities to am end). Further, the Court dism isses without prejudice plaintiff’s claim for negligent repair for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court m ay dism iss a claim for failure to prosecute pursuant to its “inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudw in v. Gray stone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 40 1 (5th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff has m ade no effort to m ove this case forward since the Court’s September 14, 20 17 order, and his briefing makes clear that he wishes to abandon his federal case in favor of a state court action. 18 Plaintiff asserts that he did not am end his complaint because the Court’s September 14, 20 17 order destroyed federal jurisdiction over this m atter. 19 But plaintiff m isunderstands both the Court’s order and federal question jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s MagnusonMoss Warranty Act claim s under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court did not dism iss all of plaintiff’s federal claim s with prejudice. Instead, the Court granted plaintiff leave to am end his Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim s except 18 19 R. Doc. 20 . Id. 4 insofar as his claim against Forest River relates to an express warranty as to the defects identified in the original com plaint. 20 Plaintiff now represents that am endm ent of his Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim would have been futile because no express warranties were given to plaintiff except for the warranty provided by Forest River. 21 But plaintiff’s belief that an am ended com plaint would be unable to state a valid federal claim 22 does not deprive the Court of federal question jurisdiction over this m atter. See Jung v. K & D Min. Co., 356 U.S. 335, 337 (1958) (explaining that an order dism issing a com plaint with leave to amend is not a final judgm ent, and leaves “the suit pending for further proceedings either by am endment of the (com plaint) or entry of final judgm ent”) (internal citation om itted). Further, the Court notes that plaintiff’s com plaint alleges a breach of both written and im plied warranties by Forest River and General Motors in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. 23 Plaintiff was free to am end his com plaint to assert Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim s against Forest River for breach of im plied warranties, 20 21 22 23 R. Doc. 16 at 12. R. Doc. 20 at 2. Id. R. Doc. 1 at 7-8. 5 or for breach of express warranties as to defects not identified in the original com plaint. Even if the Court had dism issed with prejudice all federal claim s in this case, the Court would retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claim s, including the negligent repair claim that was not dism issed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff did not ask the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. See Batiste v. Island Records Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 227 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that the general rule of declining supplemental jurisdiction “when all federal claim s are dism issed or otherwise elim inated from a case prior to trial . . . is neither m andatory nor absolute”). Nor did plaintiff request voluntary dism issal of this action by court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Plaintiff made no attem pt to inform the Court of his intent to abandon his federal action and proceed with his claim s in state court until after defendants filed this m otion to dism iss with prejudice. 24 Because the Court retains jurisdiction over this m atter and plaintiff failed to tim ely am end his com plaint, the com plaint is dism issed. 24 R. Doc. 17; R. Doc. 20 . 6 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ m otion. Plaintiff’s claim s for redhibition, lender liability, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. Plaintiff’s claim for negligent repair is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. 28th _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
