United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
JEFFREY E. ALLEN and ELIZABETH A ALLEN, Plaintiffs
HOLIDAY KAMPER COMPANY OF COLUMBIA, LLC d/b/a Camping World RV Sales; WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC.; and BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jeffery E. Allen and Elizabeth A. Allen (collectively, the
Allens) brought this suit in the Court of Common Pleas for
Horry County against Defendants Holiday Kamper Company of
Columbia, LLC, d/b/a Camping World RV Sales (Camping World),
Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Winnebago), and Bank of America,
NA (Bank of America) (collectively, Defendants). The
Allen's claims include breaches of warranties under state
law and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Warranty
Act), violations of the South Carolina Manufacturers,
Distributors, and Dealers Act, violations of South
Carolina's Lemon Law, rescission, and revocation of
subsequently removed the case to this Court. The Court has
jurisdiction over the matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1367.
before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. Having carefully considered the motion, the
response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants'
motion. Specifically, the Court will grant Defendants'
motion as to the Allen's: (1) suit against Camping World,
(2) revocation of acceptance and rescission claims, (3) Lemon
Law allegations against Winnebago, and (4) causes of action
against Bank of America. And, the Court will deny
Defendants' motion on the Allen's claims against
Winnebago for (1) breach of warranties and (2) violations of
the South Carolina Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers
Act, SC Code Ann. § 56-15-10.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Allens purchased their 2016 Sunstar LX Class A motorhome (the
RV) from Camping World on December 4, 2015. The RV was
manufactured by Winnebago. They paid $125, 000 for the RV,
plus $4, 075 in additional charges, for a total of $129,
075.00. The Allens financed $90, 075 of this amount. The loan
was assigned to Bank of America.
to the Allens, “[s]hortly after purchasing the [RV],
[they] experienced numerous unrelenting problems . . . .
[They] have had the [RV] in for repairs at the Camping World
Repair Shop on numerous occasions, totaling many
months.” Complaint ¶ 7-8.
the Allens filed suit in state court, Defendants removed the
case to this Court on the basis of the Allen's Warranty
Act claim. Subsequent to the Court's denying the
Allen's motion to remand, Defendants filed their motion
for summary judgment, the Allens filed their response in
opposition, and Defendants filed their reply in support. The
Court, having been briefed on the relevant issues, is
prepared to adjudicate Defendants' motion on the merits.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.” The moving party bears this initial burden of
informing the Court of the basis for its motions, and
identifying those portions of the record “which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court reviews the record by drawing
all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the
motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
the moving party carries its burden, the adverse party may
not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse
party's pleadings, but the adverse party's response .
. . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The
adverse party must show more than “some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita,
475 U.S. at 586. If an adverse party completely fails to make
an offer of proof concerning an essential element of that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof, then all other facts are necessarily rendered
immaterial and the moving party is entitled to summary
judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Hence, the
granting of summary judgment involves a three-tier analysis.
the Court determines whether a genuine issue actually exists
so as to necessitate a trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). An issue is
genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable
[trier of fact] could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Second, the Court must ascertain
whether that genuine issue pertains to material facts.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The substantial law of the case
identifies the material facts, that is, those facts that
potentially affect the outcome of the suit.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Third, assuming no
genuine issue exists as to the material facts, the Court will
decide whether the moving party shall prevail solely as a
matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
judgment is “properly regarded not as a disfavored
procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the
Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the
just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327. The primary
issue is whether the material facts present a substantive
disagreement as to require a trial, or whether the facts are
sufficiently one-sided that one party should prevail as a
matter of law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. The
substantive law of the case identifies which facts are
material. Id. at 248. Only disputed facts
potentially affecting the outcome of the suit under the
substantive law preclude the entry of summary judgment.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Whether the Court should dismiss the Allen's claims
against Camping World
Defendants contend the Allen's claims against Camping
World should be dismissed on the basis it validly excluded
all the warranties on the RV. The Allens neglect to address
this issue in their response to Defendants' motion.
Therefore, any argument in opposition they might have is
waived. See Russell v. Absolute Collection Servs.,
Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 396 n. * (4th Cir. 2014) (noting
that failure to present legal arguments waives the argument).
As such, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the Allens claims against Camping World.
Whether the Court should dismiss the Allen's breach of
Defendants state the Allens have failed to establish any
breach of warranty by Winnebago. The Allens take exception to
portion of the parties' dispute focuses primarily on two
component parts of the RV: the slide-outs and the levelers.
The slide-outs are used to expand the size of the living
space of the RV. And, the levelers are supposed to make the
RV level when camping and parked on an uneven terrain.
Allens maintain “[t]he slide-out mechanisms for the
living portions of the home have never worked satisfactorily.
The slide-outs continue to work loose and slide [ ] out of
their positions on long trips.” The Allen's
Response in Opposition 2 (citing Jeffrey Allen's Depo.).
Allens state they “have continued to experience the
same problem over and over again with the levelers. [They]
will go to a particular site, position the levelers, and then
over a period of time, the levelers will leak down so that
the home is no longer level.” Id. According to
the Allens, “[w]hen the home is no longer level, the
doors will not shut ...