At least five federal warranty lawsuits have been filed against Alliance RV, LLC between early 2024 and early 2025, all brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Four ended in settlements and were dismissed with prejudice on confidential terms. One, filed by Michael and Jacquey Stanicek, remained active into 2026.
The Five Cases and Where They Stand
Nay v. Alliance RV
Heidi Nay filed the earliest of the identified cases in Bexar County, Texas. Alliance RV removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in February 2024 and then successfully moved to transfer it to the Northern District of Indiana under a forum-selection clause, with the transfer completed in April 2024. The parties settled over the summer, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice on August 7, 2024.1PACER Monitor. Heidi Nay v. Alliance RV, LLC Nay was represented by Timothy Abeel & Associates; Alliance RV was represented by Barnes & Thornburg.2Law360. Heidi Nay v. Alliance RV, LLC
Mahre v. Alliance RV
Richard Mahre and Holly Ritthaler filed on February 19, 2024, in the Northern District of Indiana. After a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Scott J. Frankel in November 2024, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on June 3, 2025.3PACER Monitor. Mahre et al v. Alliance RV, LLC
Hruska v. Alliance RV
Filed on July 16, 2024, in the Northern District of Indiana, this case was dismissed with prejudice on December 19, 2024, after the parties settled. Attorney Richard C. Dalton represented the plaintiff.4PACER Monitor. Hruska v. Alliance RV, LLC
DeSmith v. Alliance RV
Filed on January 15, 2025, in the same court. A settlement conference was held on June 5, 2025, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on July 8, 2025 after a comprehensive settlement.5PACER Monitor. DeSmith v. Alliance RV, LLC
Stanicek v. Alliance RV (Active)
Michael and Jacquey Stanicek filed on January 28, 2025, in the Northern District of Indiana, and requested a jury trial.6Justia Dockets. Stanicek et al v. Alliance RV, LLC Richard C. Dalton represents the plaintiffs; Barnes & Thornburg attorneys Daniel R. Obert and Amber M. Neal represent Alliance RV.7PACER Monitor. Stanicek et al v. Alliance RV, LLC A Zoom settlement conference was scheduled for June 4, 2025. The court set a fact discovery deadline of March 27, 2026, and an expert discovery deadline of June 30, 2026. Whether the settlement conference produced a resolution is not reflected in the available docket information.
What the Lawsuits Have in Common
All five cases were filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. All five were litigated in the Northern District of Indiana, Alliance RV’s home jurisdiction. Every resolved case ended in a settlement and a dismissal with prejudice, meaning those plaintiffs cannot refile the same claims. Settlement terms have not been made public in any case. The specific defects alleged in each complaint are not detailed in the available docket records, though the warranty focus points to disputes over whether Alliance RV adequately repaired problems the buyers reported.
Two names recur across the docket. Attorney Richard C. Dalton represented plaintiffs in the Hruska and Stanicek matters. Barnes & Thornburg served as Alliance RV’s defense counsel in at least the Nay and Stanicek cases.7PACER Monitor. Stanicek et al v. Alliance RV, LLC
Magnuson-Moss and Why RV Buyers Use It
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a federal consumer protection law that gives buyers a cause of action when a manufacturer fails to fulfill the terms of a written warranty on a consumer product. RV owners rely on it because many state lemon laws either exclude recreational vehicles or cover only the chassis and drivetrain, leaving the living quarters unprotected.
To bring a claim, a consumer generally has to show that the manufacturer had a reasonable opportunity to fix the defect. In practice, that means taking the vehicle to an authorized dealer, documenting each repair attempt, and giving the manufacturer a reasonable number of tries. If the warranty is still not honored, remedies can include a refund, a replacement, or the difference between the price paid and the vehicle’s actual value. A prevailing consumer can also recover attorney fees from the manufacturer, which is why individual buyers can afford to sue over a single unit.
NHTSA Recalls on Alliance RV Products
Separate from the civil lawsuits, Alliance RV has been the subject of multiple National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recalls:
- Recall 24V-286, reported in April 2024, covered 697 units of the 2022 Avenue 32RLS and 2022 Paradigm 295MK. Incorrectly installed freshwater tanks could detach from the vehicle. Dealers were instructed to remount the tanks at no charge.8NHTSA. Recall 24V-286 Defect Notice
- Recall 24V675000, announced in September 2024, covered 154 units of the 2024–2025 Paradigm. The 7-way electrical connection to the brake actuator could be mis-wired, potentially preventing the brakes from engaging if the tow vehicle detached. Dealers were directed to inspect and correct the wiring at no charge.9Justia Auto Recalls. Alliance RV Paradigm Recall 24V675000
- Recall 26V324000, reported in 2026, affected 2022–2025 Valor and Paradigm trailers because the installed heating pads may not be appropriate for lithium battery applications.10RV PRO. NHTSA Lists Weekly Recalls
- Recall 26V337000, also reported in 2026, covered 2025–2027 Paradigm trailers equipped with certain Curt Touring Coil Suspensions, where shock bolts may have been incorrectly tightened.10RV PRO. NHTSA Lists Weekly Recalls
- A 2025 recall addressed 152 units of the 2025 Avenue 23ML travel trailer for incorrect weight and cargo capacity placards.
If You Own an Alliance RV With an Unresolved Defect
The pattern in the resolved Alliance RV cases is worth noting for anyone considering a claim. Suits were filed in Alliance RV’s home district (a forum-selection clause pulled Nay’s Texas case there), and each resolved matter was settled rather than tried. Before contacting counsel, keep every repair order, invoice, and written communication with the dealer and the manufacturer. That paper trail is what a Magnuson-Moss claim is built on, because the law requires you to show the manufacturer had a reasonable opportunity to make the vehicle conform to its warranty.
Check the NHTSA recall database for your model and VIN as well. Recall repairs are handled outside of civil litigation and do not require a lawsuit, but a recall notice on your unit can also be useful evidence of a defect if you later need to bring a warranty claim on related problems.