David Davenport v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., 661 F. App'x 997

Plaintiffs Robin and David Davenport sued Thor Motor Coach under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Fla. Stat. § 320.838 alleging defects in a 2013 motor coach and seeking rescission (return of the vehicle and refund), repair costs, incidental/consequential damages, and fees/costs.
Thor served a Florida offer of judgment under Fla. Stat. § 768.79; the Davenports rejected it.
The district court granted summary judgment for Thor, holding the Davenports failed to prove defects and that revocation of acceptance/recission claims are barred against non-selling manufacturers.
After judgment, Thor moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under Fla. Stat. § 768.79; the district court denied fees, reasoning the Davenports’ complaint sought both monetary and equitable relief so § 768.79 did not apply.
Thor appealed, arguing the equitable remedy (rescission/revocation) was unavailable as a matter of law, so the mere pleading of equitable relief should not bar recovery under § 768.79.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the presence of an equitable claim (rescission) prevents application of § 768.79 regardless of whether that equitable claim ultimately fails on the merits or is unavailable as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fla. Stat. § 768.79 (offer of judgment) applies when the complaint seeks both monetary and equitable relief	The complaint included claims for damages and sought rescission; inclusion of equitable relief prevents application of § 768.79	Despite pleading rescission, rescission/revocation was not legally available against a non-selling manufacturer, so the equitable claim should not bar § 768.79 recovery	The court held § 768.79 does not apply where the action seeks both monetary and equitable relief; a pleaded equitable claim (rescission) bars fee recovery even if the equitable claim is later held unavailable
Whether a meritless or legally unavailable equitable claim allows a defendant to recover fees under § 768.79	N/A (plaintiffs argued only that their pleadings invoked equitable relief)	Thor argued that if the equitable claim is meritless or legally unavailable, the statute should still apply	The court held that the availability or merit of the equitable claim does not affect the statute’s applicability; merits are considered only after applicability is established

Diamond Aircraft Indus. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court: § 768.79 does not apply to actions seeking both damages and equitable relief)
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity/pendent jurisdiction cases)
Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 494 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (Florida’s offer-of-judgment statute is substantive for Erie purposes)
Scheurenbrand v. Wood Gundy Corp., 8 F.3d 1547 (11th Cir. 1993) (rescission characterized as equitable relief)
Phillips v. Kaplus, 764 F.2d 807 (11th Cir. 1985) (rescission restores parties to pre-transaction status quo)