Diemert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

JAMES DIEMERT, Civ. No. 6:24-cv-00339-AA

Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

v.

FOREST RIVER, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________________

AIKEN, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

filed by Defendant Forest River, Inc. ECF No. 21. The Court concludes that this

motion is appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the Motion is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file, if any, show “that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Substantive law on an issue determines

the materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809

F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party determines the authenticity of the

dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving

party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party

must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial.

Id. at 324.

Special rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary judgment

motion: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact

should be resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to be drawn from

the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630-31.

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff James Diemert purchased and took possession

of a 2021 Coachmen Sportcoach RV from Bish’s RV, an RV dealer in Junction City,

Oregon. Wheeler Decl. Ex. 1, at 1, ECF No. 22; Diemert Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 28-1. The

RV was manufactured by Defendant Forest River, Inc. Diemert Decl. ¶ 3.

Plaintiff alleges that, since purchasing the RV, he has experienced a series of

defects, which he reported to both the retailer and to Defendant. Diemert Decl. ¶ 5.

Plaintiff has taken the RV in for repairs multiple times, totaling over 230 days of

repair time on a vehicle that has been driven less than 5,000 miles. Id. ¶ 6.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings his claim under the Oregon Lemon Law (“OLL,”), ORS

646A.400, et seq. In relevant part, the OLL provides:

(1) If the manufacturer or agents or authorized dealers of the

manufacturer are unable to conform the vehicle to an applicable

manufacturer’s express warranty by repairing or correcting a defect or

condition that substantially impairs the use, market value or safety of

the motor vehicle to the consumer after a reasonable number of

attempts, the manufacturer shall:

(a) Replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle; or

(b) Accept the return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the

consumer the full purchase or lease price and collateral charges paid,

less a reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use of the motor vehicle.

ORS 646A.404(1).

Consumer protection statutes like the OLL “are ‘construed liberally’ to

effectuate their remedial purposes.” Roblin v. Newmar Corp.¸859 Fed. App’x 171, 172

(9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Halperin v. Pitts, 352 Or. 482, 495 (2012)).

Under the OLL, a “motor home” is “a motor vehicle that is a new or

demonstrator vehicle unit built on, or permanently attached to, a self-propelled motor

vehicle chassis, chassis cab or van that becomes an integral part of the completed

vehicle, and that is designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational,

camping or travel use.” ORS 646A.400(3)(a). However:

“Motor home” does not include “living facility components,” which means

those items designed, used or maintained primarily for the living

quarters portion of the motor home, including but not limited to the

flooring, plumbing fixtures, appliances, water heater, fabrics, door and

furniture hardware, lighting fixtures, generators, roof heating and air

conditioning units, cabinets, countertops, furniture and audio-visual

equipment.

ORS 646A.400(3)(c).

During discovery, Plaintiff initially identified thirteen defects in the RV: (1)

the kitchen stove; (2) the left turn signal; (3) the fireplace; (4) the refrigerator; (5) the

dash lights; (6) the engine grill; (7) the recliners; (8) the screen door; (9) the ceiling

heater; (10) a kitchen sink water leak; (11) a propane water heater leak; (12) a

hydraulic fluid leak; and (13) a hole under the kitchen sink. Wheeler Decl. Ex. 2, at

4-5. In his Response, Plaintiff concedes all but two these alleged defects. Pl. Resp. 4

(“However, even after receiving the RV back on November 15, 2023, there were still

two issues with the RV that qualify for relief under the Lemon Law, the left turn

signal that does not can cancel and the large hole in the floor.”).

I. The Left Turn Signal

Plaintiff asserts that the “left turn signal will cancel after making sharp turns,

but not after making slight or sweeping turns.” Diemert Decl. ¶ 9.

Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s OLL

claim on the left turn signal on the grounds that (1) the condition of the left turn

signal is in full conformance with Forest River’s express warranty and (2) it does not

substantially impair the use, market value or safety of the RV. Defendant has

submitted a video of the RV being test-driven which demonstrates that the left turn

signal disengages after the vehicle makes a turn. Stanton Decl. Ex. 2. ECF No. 24.

A court may properly consider video evidence in ruling on a motion for summary

judgment and should view the facts “in the light depicted by the videotape.” Scott v.

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007).

Jason Brewer, the Director of Owner Relations for Defendant, reviewed the

video of the turn signal and affirms that it is “visually and audibly operating

normally, including when it can be heard ‘clicking’ an additional time after

mechanically resetting itself as the Sportcoach’s steering wheel is returned to center

toward the completion of the turn.” Brewer Decl. ¶ 5. Brewer affirms that “[h]ad

plaintiff presented to Forest River a warranty claim based on the left turn signal, it

would have been denied as the turn signal is functioning normally and not otherwise

in need of repair or replacement in accordance with Forest River’s warranty.” Id. ¶

6.

The Court has also reviewed the video and, interpreting the facts in the light

depicted in the video, likewise concludes that the turn signal is operating normally.1

Plaintiff may subjectively dissatisfied with how the turn signal works, but no

reasonable jury could conclude that the turn signal was defective. Defendant is

entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim as to the turn signal.

II. The Kitchen Sink Hole

Plaintiff asserts that there is a “hole in the floor is approximately 4 inches long

and 1 and a half inches wide” under the RV’s kitchen sink. Diemert Decl. ¶ 8. At his

deposition, Plaintiff testified that the hole was visible if one opened the slide-out door,

1 Although not part of the Court’s analysis, the Court notes that turn signals are intended to cancel

after sharp turns but ordinarily must be manually disengaged after less sharp turns, as in the case

of a lane change or a sweeping turn. Defendant points to the guidance published by the Oregon

Department of Transportation stating that the turn signal should be “canceled” after completing a

lane change.

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/DMV/Pages/Online_Parent_Guide_to_Teen_Driving/08_Complex_Drivin

g_Skills.aspx (last accessed Mar. 6, 2026). The “defect” Plaintiff complains of appears to be the

normal functioning of a turn signal.

“took a flashlight in there” and look to “where the pipes and stuff are running and

going in through the floor.” Supp. Wheeler Decl. Ex. 1 at 2-3. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff

stated that the hole was created as a pass-through for plumbing lines and then sealed

with spray foam and black undercoating in a manner Plaintiff found “pretty crude

and amateurish,” and “like a 13-year-old did it that didn’t know what he was doing.”

Id. at 4, 7. Plaintiff testified that he believed that it should have been fixed with

padding and a rigid surface screwed into place. Id. at 6-7.

Defendant asserts that the “hole” in the kitchen sink floor is not actionable

under the OLL because it is part of the “living facility component” of the RV.

As noted, the OLL “specifically exempts ‘living facility components,’ defined as

‘those items designed, used or maintained primarily for the living quarters portion of

the motor home.’” Sarkisian v. Newmar Indus., Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-1123-IM, 2023

WL 5206953, at *4 (D. Or. Aug. 14, 2023) (quoting ORS 646A.400(3)(c)). The “hole”

in question was clearly cut intentionally to allow the passage of plumbing lines for

the sink in the living quarters of the RV and then sealed, albeit not to Plaintiff’s

satisfaction. This is one of the “living facility components” of the motorhome and it

is excluded from the OLL under ORS 646A.400(3)(c). Defendants are therefore

entitled to summary judgment on the claim for the hole under the kitchen sink.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED. Because resolution of this motion entirely

disposes of Plaintiff’s claim, see Def. Mot. 2 (noting that the collective effect of its

motions for partial summary judgment is complete summary judgment), final

judgment shall be entered in this case.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this 9 th day of March 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken

ANN AIKEN

United States District Judge