Opinion ID: 73212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Twigg's Suit

Text: Twigg filed a complaint in the Middle District of Florida that asserts claims arising out of his purchase of four new tires from a Sears automotive center in Sarasota, Florida on September 26, 1991. The complaint alleges that Twigg had Sears install the new tires on his car and purchased, on Sears's recommendation, the AccuBalance service, in which a machine test[s] a rim-mounted tire and, if the testing indicates it is necessary, the machine shaves rubber from parts of the tire thereby making the tire/rim unit round. (R.1-11 at ¶ 12.) Twigg alleges that Sears did not perform the AccuBalance service on his tires, and that Sears in fact performed the service less than 50% of the time that it was sold to customers. Twigg filed the instant action as a class action, defining the class as all Sears customers who paid Sears for the AccuBalance service with new tires purchased during the period of May 1989 and [sic] June 1994. (R.1-11 at ¶ 55.) He asserts three claims: federal civil RICO, common-law fraud, and conversion. Sears moved to dismiss the action, asserting: (1) that Twigg did not allege a sufficient injury to support standing; (2) that Twigg did not allege an injury sufficient to pass Florida's economic loss rule; (3) that Twigg failed to state a claim for a RICO violation or for conversion; and (4) that the settlement, release, and final judgment in a 1992 consumer class action against Sears barred Twigg's claims. In his opposition to the motion, Twigg contested Sears's arguments, and argued additionally that notice in the earlier action was insufficient to apprise him as to his rights, and therefore to bar his suit would deny him due process. (See R.5-111 at 17-19 (opposition to motion for summary judgment).) The district court dismissed Twigg's conversion claim for failure to state a claim, but concluded that he alleged an injury sufficient both to support standing and to pass the economic loss rule, and that he sufficiently pleaded a civil RICO claim. As for Sears's argument that Twigg's claims were precluded by the judgment and release in the prior class action, the district court converted that portion of Sears's 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment, granting limited discovery on the issue of claim preclusion.