Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scarlott v. Nissan North America, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

September 30, 2014

APRIL SCARLOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant;
v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; HURRICANE GLASS; HURRICANE AUTO CARE & ACCESSORIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees WEISBERG & MEYERS, L.L.C.; NOAH D. RADBIL, Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

For April Scarlott, Plaintiff - Appellant: Aaron D. Radbil, Miami, FL.

For Weisberg & Meyers, L.L.C., Appellant: Aaron D. Radbil, Miami, FL.

For NOAH D. RADBIL, Esq., Appellant: Raffi Melkonian, Wright & Close, L.L.P., Houston, TX; Aaron D. Radbil, Miami, FL.

For Nissan North America, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee: Jeffrey Scott Patterson, Esq., Giovanna Tarantino Bingham, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, L.L.P., Dallas, TX.

For Hurricane Auto Care & Accessories, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee: Leslie William Adams, Leslie Adams & Associates, Houston, TX; Angelle Marie Adams, Leslie Wm. Adams & Associates, Houston, TX.

Before KING, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 279

HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant April Scarlott and Appellants Weisberg & Meyers, L.L.C. and Noah Radbil appeal the district court's

Page 280

denial of Scarlott's motion to remand, grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Nissan North American, Incorporated (" Nissan" ) and Hurricane Auto Care & Accessories, Incorporated (" Hurricane" ),[1] as well as the district court's final judgment and various management orders. Appellants contend that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. For the reasons below, we REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In December 2006, Scarlott purchased a 2006 Murano from a Nissan dealership for $31,881, totaling $39,289 including all financing fees, warranties, taxes, and costs. For safety reasons, Scarlott wanted to purchase a car that had a HomeLink system built into the mirror, which would allow her to sync her car with her home lights, alarm system, and garage door. The salesman at the dealership assured Scarlott that the car she purchased had a HomeLink mirror; however, when she attempted to program the mirror that night, she realized that the car did not have the necessary system. The day after she purchased the car, she went back to the dealership intending to return the car. Instead, she agreed to bring the car to a local factory-authorized installation center to have the HomeLink system and mirror installed. The dealership arranged for Hurricane to perform this installation and gave Scarlott a voucher so that she would not have to pay for it.

Nine months later, in September 2007, the car began experiencing electrical problems, including difficulty starting. Scarlott took the car to the dealership, which replaced the car's battery. The car continued to experience intermittent electrical problems over the next two years, requiring Scarlott to take her car to the dealership on seven occasions. The dealership replaced the battery four times. In November 2009, the dealership monitored the car for almost thirty days and then diagnosed the electrical problems as being ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.