Legal Opinion

Muller v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided May 14, 2004No. CV03-1417-PHX-FJMPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

MARTONE, District Judge.

The court has before it Defendant Workhorse Custom Chassis’ (“Workhorse”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (doc. 46), Plaintiffs Response (doc. 54), Workhorse’s Reply (doc. 61), and the parties’ supplemental memoranda (docs. 74 and 75). For the reasons set forth below, we deny Workhorse’s motion.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff purchased a “Winnebago” motor home from an authorized dealer in Arizona for approximately $200,000. The motor home was manufactured by Winnebago, although certain component parts were manufactured by other defendants.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Brown v. MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  2. De Shazer v. National RV Holdings, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2005
  3. Graham v. Hyundai Motor AmericaAppellate Court of Illinois · 2006
  4. Vasiluks v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API