Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02082/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02082-1/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

Plaintiff has asked the Court to enter final judgment in favor of Defendant

Winnebago under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, to

cert ify the summary judgment in favor of Winnebago as appealable under 28 U.S.C. §

1292(b). See Doc. #184. Plaintiff also asks the Court to stay the trial against Workhorse

while he pursues the appeal against Winnebago. Id. For the reasons set forth below, t he

Court will enter a final judgment against Winnebago under Rule 54(b), will deny the request

for a § 1292(b) certification, and will deny Plaintiff’s request to stay the trial against

Workhorse.

A. Rule 54(b).

The Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Winnebago. See Doc. #159.

The Court has also denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. See Doc. #181. Thus,

all claims against Winnebago have been resolved.

The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay ing entry of judgment in favor

of Winnebago. Winnebago has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. #185) and asks the

Case 2:03-cv-02082-DGC Document 196 Filed 01/11/06 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 - 2

Court to delay entry of judgment until that motion has been resolved (Doc. #189), but the

Court may (and will) consider Winnebago’s fee ap plication even after judgment has been

entered. See LRCiv 54.2(b)(1). 

B. § 1292(b).

Because the Court will enter a final judgment in favor of Winnebago under

Rule 54(b), the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) do not apply. See Wright, Miller & Kane,

Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2658.2 at 90. The Court accordingly will deny

Plaintiff’s alternative request for a certification under § 1292(b). 

C. Stay Request.

Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the trial against Workhorse, arguing that such a stay

may prevent two trials (if Plaintiff’s appeal is successful) and will avoid potential prejudice

to Plaintiff. The Court concludes that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by proceeding to trial

against Workhorse. Plaintiff’s claim against Workhorse is based on the warranty issued

by Workhorse. The nat ure of this claim will not change if Winnebago’s appeal is

successful. Although Plaintiff may prefer as a matter of trial strategy to have both

Workhorse and Winnebago in the same case, trial st rat egy cannot dictate the Court’s

docket. This case has been pending since Oct ober of 2003. It is time for the case to be

resolved. T he trial against Workhorse will not be stayed. The existing schedule for

briefing of pretrial matters shall remain in effect. See Doc. #182. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion(Doc. #184) is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Final judgment is entered in favor of Winnebago Industries, Inc. pursuant to

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:03-cv-02082-DGC Document 196 Filed 01/11/06 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 - 3

3. The action against Defendant Workhorse Custom Chassis, L.L.C. shall not

be stayed.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02082-DGC Document 196 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3