United States Sixth Circuit

In an action alleging that plaintiffs' new R.V. was defective in violation of federal and state consumer laws, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's appeal is denied as: 1) simply offering the N.A.D.A. value of a fully-functional R.V. is insufficient to establish to a legal certainty that plaintiffs could not obtain at least $50,000 in damages were they to prevail on their claims against defendants; and 2) thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). However, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed on the merits.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/11/2008
• Published 01/11/2008

Judges

• Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Adam S. Alexander, The Alexander Law Firm, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.  Michael D. Dolenga, Dolenga & Dolenga, Farmington, Michigan, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Adam S. Alexander, The Alexander Law Firm, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.  Michael D. Dolenga, Jeffrey R. Nowicki, Dolenga & Dolenga, Farmington, Michigan, for Appellees.