Demidio v. Rev Recreation Grp., Inc.

DIANNE and VINCENT DeMIDIO, Plaintiffs, v. REV RECREATION GROUP, INC., Defendant.

KIMBERLY GREENWELL AND ALFRED JOHN GREENWELL Plaintiffs, v. REV RECREATION GROUP, INC., Defendant.

No. 1:17-CV-326

C/w No. 1:17-CV-350

No. 1:17-CV-350

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

April 10, 2018

Solely for the Purpose of Ruling on the Motions to Dismiss

OPINION AND ORDER

These two cases, as the caption indicates, were consolidated for ruling on two motions to dismiss filed by Defendant REV Recreation Group. REV filed its original motion to dismiss in the first case, 1:17-CV-326, on September 29, 2017 (ECF 4), asking the Court to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Dianne and Vincent DeMidio or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending arbitration. The DeMidios filed a response in opposition on November 3, 2017 (ECF 10) and REV filed a reply on November 27 (ECF13). REV filed a motion to dismiss in case number 1:17-CV-350 on October 13, 2017 (ECF 5), seeking dismissal of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Kimberly and Alfred John Greenwell based on the same arguments raised in the DeMidio case. Before the Greenwells filed a response in opposition, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate these cases pursuant to Federal Rule 42(a) and Local Rule 42-2(a), which was granted on December 14, 2017. Court Order of Consolidation (1:17-CV-326, (ECF 15); 1:17-CV-350, (ECF 20)). In accordance with that order of consolidation, REV filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaints; or, Alternatively, to Stay the Action[s] Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 on December 29 (ECF 16 in 1:17-CV-326 and ECF 21 in 1:17-CV-350). It is this amended motion that is before the Court. The DeMidios and Greenwells filed a joint response in opposition on January 26, 2018 (ECF 20) and REV filed a reply on February 15 (ECF 21). Finally, on March 9, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF 22), to which REV responded on March 16 (ECF 23). For the reasons discussed below, REV's amended motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Court's Order of Consolidation, its purpose fulfilled, is hereby WITHDRAWN and each case will proceed before the judicial officer to whom it was previously assigned (1:17-CV-350, Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann; 1:17-CV-326, Judge William C. Lee).

BACKGROUND

The DeMidios and the Greenwells bought recreational vehicles manufactured and warranted by REV. The DeMidios purchased their RV, a 2017 Fleetwood Storm 32A, on December 3, 2016, and the Greenwells purchased their 2017 Holiday Rambler Endeavor 40E on March 15, 2017. Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition, pp. 2, 3. The couples allege that their respective RVs had many problems and defects that REV failed to repair. The DeMidios sued the company for "breach of warranty and/or contract," violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and "violation of applicable state Udap laws, being the New York Deceptive Acts law . . . and/or the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act[.]" DeMidio Complaint (ECF 1). TheGreenwells did likewise, suing REV and alleging the same three claims, except the Greenwells allege that their state law deceptive practices claim arises out "of applicable state Udap laws, being the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act . . . and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act[.]" Greenwell Complaint (ECF 1, 1:17-CV-350). The underlying facts giving rise to the Plaintiffs' claims are mostly irrelevant for present purposes, save for those assertions pertaining to the arbitration provision that is the subject of REV's motion. REV's motion to dismiss or stay is based solely on its contention that the Plaintiffs are bound by an arbitration provision contained in the written limited warranty covering the DeMidio and Greenwell RVs. REV contends that neither couple can proceed with their case "because there exists a binding arbitration agreement requiring the Plaintiffs to resolve any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to the warranty upon which their claims are based via arbitration in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As such, venue in this district is improper." Amended Motion to Dismiss, pp. 1-2. Therefore, argues REV, these cases must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). REV argues alternatively that "should this Court determine that dismissal is improper, a stay must be entered in order to allow the arbitrable claims to be resolved in arbitration as required under the warranty at issue." Id., p. 2. REV insists that the arbitration requirement contained in the limited warranty covering the RVs is valid in both cases and so litigation must be stayed pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Id., p. 2. That statute provides as follows:

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the actionuntil such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.

9 U.S.C. § 3.

The Plaintiffs argue that no valid arbitration agreement was ever formed and so REV cannot compel them to participate in that process. The Plaintiffs insist that the "private arbitration process in Defendant's warranty is unenforceable here because (1) it does not comply with the federal disclosure requirements, (2) Plaintiffs never agreed to arbitrate this matter, and (3) the arbitration clause is illusory and violates public policy." Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (ECF 20), p. 2. The DeMidios and Greenwells claim the arbitration clause is void because neither couple was aware of it since REV "did not comply with the law's minimum disclosure requirements[.]" Id. As to the DeMidios, they state as follows:

Prior to purchasing the RV, the salesman told the DeMidios that the REV warranty covered parts, equipment, and labor for one year. The salesman did not discuss any other terms contained in the REV warranty with the DeMidios. Notably, he did not discuss the arbitration clause. And, there were no signs in the dealership showroom, in the finance office, or on the RV itself that indicated that the REV warranty would be made available to the DeMidios before the sale.

After the DeMidios signed the sales paperwork, the dealership employee gave them a binder containing various documents on how to use various parts of the Rv. However, the Owner's Manual, which contained a copy of the REV warranty, was packed inside the RV in a cabinet. And, the DeMidios did not have access to the RV until after they signed the sales paperwork. Moreover, REV never mentioned the arbitration clause when the DeMidios family complained directly to REV about its failure to repair the RV. Thus, at no time prior to filing their case in court was the DeMidio family aware of any arbitration clause in the warranty.

Id., p. 3 (internal citations to Affidavit of Vincent DeMidio omitted). The Greenwells likewise claim that they "were completely unaware of the arbitration clause until REV filed its motion to dismiss." Id., p. 4. The Greenwells state that "[p]rior to purchasing the RV, the Greenwells askedthe salesman about the warranty[]" and "[t]he salesman told the Greenwells that the REV warranty was for one year and that the chassis had a 3 year warranty. . . . The Salesman did not disclose any other terms contained in the REV warranty with the Greenwells." Id., pp. 4-5. They elaborate as follows:

Although the Owner's Manual contains a copy of the warranty, the Owner's Manual was packed inside the RV in a cabinet. However, the Greenwells did not have access to the RV until after they signed the sales paperwork. . . . [D]espite repeatedly complaining to REV about the RV, REV never mentioned the arbitration clause. . . .

To make matters worse, the Greenwells never had an opportunity to review the Owner's Manual or the REV warranty since the RV has been in either the defendant's dealership or REV's possession for repair attempts during nearly the entire time the Greenwells have owned it. Moreover, since the RV was not in their possession, the Greenwells asked the dealership for a copy of the warranty, but the dealership told the Greenwells that they had to get a copy of the warranty from REV. When the Greenwells asked REV for a copy of the warranty, REV told the Greenwells that they had to get a copy of the warranty from the dealership. And, neither the dealership nor REV provided the Greenwells with a copy of the warranty for the Greenwells to review when they requested it.

Id., p. 5.

Based on these factual assertions, the Plaintiffs contend that they cannot be compelled to arbitrate their claims under an arbitration agreement they knew nothing about. The Plaintiffs argue that "[t]he binding arbitration clause contained in the Owner's Manual does not comply with the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., the FTC Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 16 C.F.R. § 702.3, or the FTC Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 703.1 et seq." Id., p. 7. The Plaintiffs assert that "[a]n integral part-if not the central part-of the MMWA is the comprehensive disclosure requirements. . . . The MMWA delegates promulgation of specific disclosure requirements to the Federal TradeCommission, but requires that the terms of any written warranty be made available to the consumer or prospective consumer prior to sale." Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 2302(a), (b)(1)(A); Cunningham v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Ga., 253 F.3d 611, 621 (11th Cir. 2001)).

The Plaintiffs then get even more specific, arguing that the arbitration clause is unenforceable because: 1) "Defendant failed to make the...