6:20-cv-01101
W.D. La.Dec 8, 2021Background
- Landry purchased a new manufactured home from Legacy on July 18, 2019 and alleges construction defects and poor workmanship appearing soon after installation.
- Landry sued in state court (Petition for Damages asserting breach of contract, redhibition, and products liability) on July 16, 2020; Legacy removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Legacy moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing the New Manufactured and Modular Home Warranty Act (NMMHWA), La. R.S. 51:912.1 et seq., provides the exclusive remedy and requires pre-suit written notice to the Louisiana Manufactured Housing Commission.
- Legacy submitted an engineer’s declaration finding no "major structural defects" and no electrical, plumbing, or HVAC defects under the Act; Landry did not dispute that report.
- Landry did not allege or show he provided the statutory pre-suit notice; in opposition he attempted to assert a new LUTPA claim alleging Legacy misled him about notice requirements.
- The court granted Legacy’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed all claims against Legacy, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Landry's Argument | Legacy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMMHWA provides the exclusive remedy barring common-law claims | Landry did not contest exclusivity in response | NMMHWA is exclusive between builders and owners, precluding breach, redhibition, and products claims | Court: NMMHWA exclusivity bars Landry’s contract, redhibition, and products-liability claims |
| Whether Landry complied with NMMHWA pre-suit notice requirement | Landry did not allege he gave Commission notice | No written notice was given within statutory period; notice is mandatory before suit | Court: Failure to give required notice precludes recovery under the Act and other theories |
| Whether alleged defects fall within NMMHWA 2- and 5-year warranties | Landry offered no contrary expert or evidence | Engineer’s declaration found no major structural or EP/HVAC defects under the Act | Court: No genuine dispute; no actionable defects under the 2- and 5-year warranties |
| Validity of a LUTPA claim based on alleged misleading statements about notice | Landry argued Legacy misled him by advising to report problems to Legacy rather than advising Commission notice | Legacy provided statutory materials and acknowledgement; LUTPA requires egregious, deceptive conduct and ascertainable loss | Court: Landry failed to plead or prove LUTPA; claim not properly raised and would fail on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2012) (NHWA/NMMHWA exclusivity precludes other claims against builder)
- Carter v. Duhe, 921 So.2d 963 (La. 2006) (statutory pre-suit notice under comparable statute required before civil action)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (Rule 56 summary judgment entry when nonmovant fails to show essential element)
- Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Service Corp., 628 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2010) (definition of genuine issue for summary judgment)
- IberiaBank v. Broussard, 907 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2018) (narrow, egregious standard for unfairness under LUTPA)