Opinion ID: 2979408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reinstatement of the Implied-Warranty Claim

Text: Country Coach first alleges error in the district court’s reinstatement of Farley’s impliedwarranty claim, arguing that, notwithstanding this court’s contrary decision in Pack, Michigan law requires contractual privity to state a claim for breach of implied warranty based on economic losses. Because the district court’s reinstatement of Farley’s implied-warranty claim is essentially a decision to deny Country Coach summary judgment on a purely legal question, we review it de novo. See Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 295 F.3d 565, 571–72 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that review of the district court’s denial of summary judgment on a pure legal question is proper even after the movant loses a full trial on the merits).2 The district court correctly reinstated Farley’s implied-warranty claim under Pack. As Country Coach conceded at oral argument, we are bound by the Pack court’s holding “that Michigan 2 The fact that Farley styled his motion to reinstate as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) does not impact the de novo standard of review applicable to the district court’s determination. Rule 60(b) and its corresponding abuse-of-discretion standard of review apply only when a party seeks relief from a “final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In the instant case, the district court reinstated the implied-warranty claim before it entered final judgment, making Farley’s motion “effectively a motion for reconsideration of summary judgment [that] ‘[t]he district court was . . . free to reconsider or reverse . . . for any reason.’” ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cnty., Ky., 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2010) (second alteration in original) (quoting Cameron v. Ohio, 344 F. App’x 115, 118 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished decision)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[A]ny order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”). Therefore, the district court enjoyed complete discretion to entertain Farley’s motion, and our review is limited to the merits of the court’s decision to reinstate. 6 has abandoned the privity requirement for implied-warranty claims” for economic losses, 434 F.3d at 820, absent further development of Michigan law. As of yet, the Michigan Supreme Court has not addressed this issue; though at the time Country Coach filed its principal brief, the court had asked the parties in the pending case Davis v. Forest River, Inc. to address “whether Michigan law provides a cause of action for breach of warranty and a remedy of rescission where the plaintiff and the defendant are not in privity of contract,” 750 N.W.2d 592, 592 (Mich. 2008), the court has since issued an opinion in the case declining to rule on this question, 774 N.W.2d 327 (Mich. 2009). Furthermore, dicta in recent opinions of the Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirm the Pack court’s conclusion that implied-warranty claims do not carry a privity requirement under Michigan law, when the plaintiffs in those cases sought only economic damages. See Heritage Res., Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 774 N.W.2d 332, 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (“[O]ur Supreme Court . . . has previously held that for some remote purchasers it is unnecessary in actions for breach of implied warranty to establish privity of contract with the manufacturer.” (citing Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 133 N.W.2d 129, 134–35 (Mich. 1965))); see also Jetts v. Stewart Bldg. Co., No. 290635, 2010 WL 2384931, at  (Mich. Ct. App. June 15, 2010) (unpublished per curiam decision) (“The fact that plaintiffs lacked any privity of contract with [defendants] is of no consequence since the claims involved a breach of implied warranties.” (citing Heritage Res., 774 N.W.2d at 343)). Therefore, the district court did not err by reinstating Farley’s implied-warranty claim.