A La Mesa RV lawsuit search turns up a mix of outcomes: a 2025 Arizona appellate reversal that revived a buyer’s breach-of-contract and consumer fraud claims, a unanimous defense verdict in a separate warranty-fraud trial, a federal Magnuson-Moss warranty case that settled in 2026, a Florida landlord dispute, and a 1984 California appellate decision that let fire-damage claims go to a jury. La Mesa RV Center, a family-owned dealer founded in 1972 with locations across California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida, has won some of these cases outright, lost others on appeal, and settled the rest.1
Devers v. La Mesa RV Center (Arizona, 2025)
The most consequential recent decision came from the Arizona Court of Appeals in June 2025. Robert and Maribel Devers paid a $5,000 deposit on a 2021 Tiffin Breeze motorhome listed at roughly $235,000. La Mesa ordered the unit from the manufacturer and documented it as “Retail Sold.” After disputes over requested repairs and delivery timing, La Mesa sold the motorhome to another buyer. The Deverses alleged that rising motorhome prices motivated the resale.
They sued for breach of contract, conversion, and consumer fraud under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. A jury sided with La Mesa on every claim. The appellate court then reversed on the central issue. It held that a binding contract was formed as a matter of law the moment La Mesa accepted the deposit and placed the custom order, and that the trial court should have granted the Deverses’ motion for judgment as a matter of law rather than sending that question to the jury.
The appellate court also found the trial judge wrongly let La Mesa attack Robert Devers’s credibility by putting in evidence that his Kentucky law license had been suspended. Arizona’s evidence rules allow questions about specific instances of conduct bearing on truthfulness, but not evidence of the resulting professional discipline itself. The court concluded the error likely swayed the jury.
La Mesa kept some ground. Summary judgment on punitive damages was affirmed because the Deverses lacked competent evidence of the intentional wrongdoing Arizona requires. The conversion claim was affirmed in La Mesa’s favor because the Deverses failed to brief it on appeal, waiving the issue. The consumer fraud claim survived on narrower reasoning: the trial evidence could support a verdict either way on whether La Mesa acted in good faith, so that question stayed open. The case was remanded for a new trial.
Wadleigh v. La Mesa RV: Warranty and Fraud Claims Over a Hymer Motorhome
In February 2019, a consumer bought a new 2019 Hymer AKTIV motorhome from La Mesa RV’s West Sacramento, California, location. The complaint alleged the salesperson described Hymer as a “well-respected company” with a “long history” and promised a six-year warranty. The buyer alleged that La Mesa knew Hymer was in receivership and was not honoring warranties, making the coverage essentially worthless.
The motorhome reportedly had defects from day one, and the buyer alleged that neither Hymer nor La Mesa would perform repairs. The Auto Fraud Legal Center, a California consumer-law firm, handled the case. Court records from a separate source indicate that a case matching this description went to a five-day jury trial in Phoenix and concluded on January 23, 2024, with a unanimous defense verdict for La Mesa on breach of contract and fraud. The jury deliberated for under two hours.
Eldridge v. La Mesa RV: A Magnuson-Moss Warranty Settlement
In January 2025, James and Juanita Eldridge filed a federal lawsuit against La Mesa RV Center and Jayco, Inc. in Arizona District Court. They sued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the federal statute that lets consumers sue when written warranties on consumer products are not honored. Specific allegations were not detailed in the public record summary, but the nature-of-suit designation confirmed the warranty-act basis.
The parties reached a settlement in early 2026. A notice of settlement was filed in April 2026, and on May 19, 2026, Senior Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson dismissed the case with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs. Settlement terms were not publicly disclosed.
Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center (California, 1984)
The litigation record reaches back four decades. In a 1984 California appellate decision, Robert Hinckley and Dorothy Hayes sued La Mesa after buying a 31-foot motorhome in August 1976 for $33,700. It came with a manufacturer’s warranty and a five-year extended warranty from La Mesa. Two months in, an electrical fire broke out when a battery cable was pinched against the vehicle frame, damaging wiring. The motorhome went to La Mesa for repairs.
In June 1977, a second fire destroyed the vehicle while it was being driven in Utah. Dorothy Hayes was seriously injured jumping from the moving motorhome. The buyers sued La Mesa and the manufacturer for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty, alleging that botched repairs after the first fire caused the second. An expert testified that the second fire was likely electrical and originated where repairs had been performed.
The trial court dismissed the case before it reached the jury, finding no credible evidence for any theory. The California Court of Appeal reversed on every count, holding that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence for a jury to decide the case, and noting that new motor vehicles do not typically catch fire without some form of negligence and that the defendants had exclusive control over the repair process.
La Mesa RV’s Florida Landlord Dispute
Not every case has involved a customer. In late 2013, La Mesa sued landlord Oscar Parsons in Sarasota County, Florida, over a lease at the former Sarasota-Bradenton International Convention Center, which the dealership had converted into a store. An October 2013 fire destroyed one RV and damaged equipment inside the building. La Mesa alleged the building’s electrical system caused the fire and that Parsons had failed to carry required hazard insurance or make necessary repairs.
Parsons countered that the electrical system was under the dealership’s control, that a cleaning company La Mesa hired caused several hundred thousand dollars in additional damage, and that La Mesa owed roughly $32,000 in unpaid rent for December 2013 through February 2014. La Mesa closed the location in February 2014, less than a year after opening it. The case went to a three-day trial in October 2016. Both sides agreed to withdraw the fire-fault claims during trial. A final judgment was entered in June 2017; the specific terms on the remaining claims were not detailed in the available record.
Consumer Complaints Outside of Court
Not every dispute becomes a lawsuit. As of mid-2026, La Mesa RV’s Better Business Bureau profile shows 80 complaints filed in the preceding three years, with 20 closed in the most recent 12 months. The company holds an A+ BBB rating and has been accredited since October 2025.
Service and repair issues make up the bulk of the record, accounting for 63 of the 80 filings. Consumers have described months-long repair waits, disputes over whether “bumper-to-bumper” warranties actually cover claimed defects, and difficulty getting cancellation paperwork for extended service contracts. Others involve sales practices, including allegations of vehicles missing features that were promised at sale, and a smaller number involve deposit and refund disputes.
Of the 80 complaints, 69 are classified as “Answered,” meaning La Mesa responded but the consumer either was not satisfied or did not confirm resolution with the BBB. Only 11 are classified as “Resolved” to the consumer’s satisfaction. La Mesa’s responses typically direct consumers to continue working with its corporate team or defer to the manufacturer on warranty-related issues.