Duane T. Burns, Kevin L. Henault v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 492 F. App'x 44

Plaintiffs Burns and Henault sued Winnebago for breach of warranty regarding an RV with alleged defects; case began in Florida state court and was removed to federal court, then remanded back to state court for lack of sufficient amount in controversy; trial was scheduled for June 2011.
Plaintiffs discovered rust/corrosion on the chassis in Oct/Nov 2010 but did not amend the complaint at that time.
On Feb. 10, 2011, Plaintiffs learned Winnebago allegedly knew of another rusty chassis but did not amend then.
Case was removed to federal court again on Feb. 22, 2011 after discovery showed dampened jurisdictional concerns; Plaintiffs filed first motion to amend on May 6, 2011 seeking to add rust, Freightliner as a defendant, and new deceptive-misrepresentation claims.
The district court denied amendments as unduly delayed, and later granted Winnebago summary judgment because Plaintiffs failed to provide required notice under the warranty and Florida UCC.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of amendments and the grant of summary judgment, concluding the Florida UCC claims failed for lack of notice and that MMWA claims were dependent on viable state warranty claims and lack of cure opportunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying amendments	Plaintiffs sought to add rust, Freightliner, and new claims.	Amendments were unduly delayed and prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether Plaintiffs failed to satisfy notice requirements under Florida UCC	Notice to seller should suffice under the statute.	Warranty terms required notice to both seller and warrantor (Winnebago).	Florida UCC claims fail due to lack of notice to Winnebago.
Whether MMWA claims survive without viable state warranty and cure opportunity	MMWA claims should proceed alongside state warranty.	MMWA requires viable state warranty and opportunity to cure, which were absent.	MMWA claims affirmed as dependent on state-warranty viability and cure opportunity.

Fla. Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 470 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for amendments; general principles of amendment)
Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999) (three-factor test for granting leave to amend; prejudice, delay, futility)
Loggerhead Turtle v. Cnty. Council of Volusia Cnty., 148 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 1998) (undue delay can support denial of amendments)
Hargett v. Valley Fed. Sav. Bank, 60 F.3d 754 (11th Cir. 1995) (discretion granted to district court to decide amendments after period for as-of-right amendments)
Foote v. Green Tree Acceptance, Inc., 597 So. 2d 803 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (discussion of notice to warrantor and possible agency considerations)
Gen. Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Co., 382 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (notice provisions enable cure opportunities and determine liability)
Am. Universal Ins. Grp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 578 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (contract-like treatment of warranties and allocation of remedies)
Detroit Diesel Corp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 So. 3d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (warranty notice considerations under Florida law)
Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (Florida warranty interpretation and duties)
Portela Invs., Inc. v. Piedra, 789 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (warranty-related duties and notice)