Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02082/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02082-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oscar Lee Traynor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Winnebago Industries, Inc. & Workhorse

Custom Chassis Inc.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2082-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Winnebago Industries, Inc., which prevailed on summary judgment, now

seeks to recover its attorneys’ fees under Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-341.01. Doc. #185.

Plaintiff opposes the request. Doc. #197. 

Plaintiff brought this action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”).

Because courts applying the MMWA look to state warranty law in some instances, and

because Plaintiff’s MMWA claim arose out of a written warranty, Winnebago argues that

this case is one “arising out of contract” within the meaning of the Arizona statute. See

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). 

The Court does not agree that the Arizona statute applies. Plaintiff asserts a federal

cause of action. As the Ninth Circuit has held, the MMWA “creates a federal private cause

of action for a warrantor’s failure to comply with the terms of a written warranty.” Milicevic

v. Fletcher Jones Imports, Ltd., 402 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 15 U.S.C. §

2310(d)(1)(B)) (emphasis added). This is not a diversity case in which state claims have

Case 2:03-cv-02082-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

been brought to federal court. The power of this Court has been invoked as a matter of

federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C § 1331. 

Although it is true that the MMWA looks to state warranty law in certain instances,

this fact does not transform Plaintiff’s claim into a cause of action brought under Arizona

law. Plaintiff has sued in federal court, asserting a federal right of action, pursuant to federal

question jurisdiction. Federal law, therefore, governs the question of attorneys’ fees. See

Modzelewski v. Resolution Trust Corp., 14 F.3d 1374, 1379 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal law, not

state law, governs the parties’ right to recover attorneys’ fees in federal question case); Home

Savings Bank F.S.B. v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 1991) (same). This is

particularly true where the federal law in question contains its own attorneys’ fee provision,

as does the MMWA – a provision, Winnebago agrees, that does not entitle it to recover fees

in this case. 

Winnebago argues that this Court should follow the recent decision of the Arizona

Court of Appeals in Chaurasia v. General Motors, 468 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 9 (App., 1/3/06).

The Court in Chaurasia addressed an MMWA claim brought in state court and concluded

that the right to attorneys’ fees should be governed by Arizona law. In so holding, the Court

concluded that Congress had not pre-empted state attorneys’ fees statutes in the MMWA.

But holding that Congress has not prohibited a state from applying its own attorneys’ fees

statute in its own courts is not the same as holding that a federal court exercising federal

question jurisdiction over a federal cause of action should apply state law. Decisions of the

Arizona Court of Appeals should be followed by this Court when applying Arizona law, but

this is a federal case with a federal cause of action. Congress has given no indication that

federal courts should look to state law when awarding attorneys’ fees in MMWA cases. To

the contrary, Congress has expressly provided an attorneys’ fee provision in the MMWA that

does not entitled Winnebago to a recovery.

The Court concludes that Winnebago is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees in this

case. In so holding, the Court aligns itself with the three other cases in this district that have

addressed the same question. See Plagens v. National RV Holdings, Inc., 2005 WL 1353936

Case 2:03-cv-02082-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

(D. Ariz. 2005); Weber v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc., CV03-2606-PHX-JWS

(Dec. 29, 2005 Order); Goelz v. Winnebago and Freightliner, CV-03-1290-PHX-SRB (Nov.

21, 2005 Order).

IT IS ORDERED that Winnebago’s application for attorneys’ fees (Doc. #185) is

denied.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02082-DGC Document 236 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 3