Jones v. Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.
Decision Date | 01 February 2022 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-00511 |
Citation | 583 F.Supp.3d 1045 |
Parties | Kevin JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Lawrence Deutsch, Berger Montague, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs Kevin Jones, Janet Jones, Douglas Cochrane, Catherine Martin.
Beau D. Hollowell, Daniel R. Karon, Law Office of Daniel R. Karon, Cleveland, OH, Brendan S. Thompson, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Washington, DC, Jacob M. Polakoff, Berger Montague, Philadelphia, PA, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs.
Jeffrey J. Lauderdale, Nada G. Faddoul, Lubrizol, Wickliffe, OH, for Defendants Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., Lubrizol Corporation.
Bradley R. Kutrow, Abigail A. Golden, Robert K. Warren, McGuire Woods, Charlotte, NC, Carolyn M. Cole, Kip T. Bollin, Thompson Hine, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co.
Carolyn M. Cole, Kip T. Bollin, Thompson Hine, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant Cresline Plastic Pipe Co. Inc.
J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge Pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Rule 23, Defendants The Lubrizol Corporation and Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., Cresline Plastic Pipe Company Inc., and Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company move to strike the class allegations in Plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint. (ECF No. 54.) Because the classes as defined inescapably include members who have not suffered an injury, and no amount of discovery can cure that legal defect, the Court GRANTS the motion.
This case remains in the early stages of discovery following the Court's ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Based on the Court's ruling, each of the named Plaintiffs has a claim for breach of express warranty under the law of the State in which he or she lives. Additionally, Plaintiffs have two additional claims (for negligence and negligent failure to warn) under Massachusetts law. Specifically, Plaintiffs have the following remaining claims.
Plaintiffs Kevin and Janet Jones state a claim for breach of express warranty (Count VI) on two theories: (1) Charlotte Pipe failed to replace their allegedly defective pipes and fittings under the 1999 limited warranty; and (2) Charlotte Pipe and Lubrizol provided products defective in workmanship and materials under the express warranties created through the brochures, catalogs, websites and marketing materials of Charlotte Pipe and Lubrizol. Plaintiffs seek to bring this claim on behalf of a nationwide class or an Arizona class of individuals and entities who purchased FlowGuard Gold from Charlotte Pipe or its predecessor Thompson Plastics.
Plaintiff Douglas Cochrane states a claim for breach of the express warranties (Count VI) on two theories: (1) Charlotte Pipe breached the applicable limited warranty by failing to replace defective FlowGuard Gold; and (2) Charlotte Pipe and Lubrizol breached the express warranties made in their brochures, catalogs, websites and marketing materials. Additionally, Plaintiff states claims for negligence (Count I) and negligent failure to warn (Count II). (ECF No. 47, PageID #1062.) Plaintiffs seek to bring this claim on behalf of a nationwide class or a Massachusetts class of individuals and entities who purchased FlowGuard Gold from Charlotte Pipe or its predecessor Thompson Plastics.
Plaintiff Donna Baker states a claim for breach of express warranty (Count VI) on two theories: (1) Charlotte Pipe failed to replace the allegedly defective pipes under the alleged written express warranty; and (2) Charlotte Pipe breached the warranty created through its brochures, catalogs, websites and marketing materials. Plaintiff also states a breach of warranty claim against Lubrizol. Plaintiffs seek to bring this claim on behalf of a nationwide class or a Washington class of individuals and entities who purchased FlowGuard Gold from Charlotte Pipe or its predecessor Thompson Plastics.
Plaintiff Catherine Martin states a claim for breach of express warranty (Count VI) against Cresline Plastic on two theories: (1) the failure to repair and replace the allegedly defective pipes under the Cresline Written Warranties; and (2) providing a defective product under the Cresline Additional Warranties. They also state a claim for breach of express warranty against Lubrizol. Plaintiffs seek to bring this claim on behalf of a nationwide class or a Michigan class of individuals and entities who purchased FlowGuard Gold from Cresline Plastic.
As to these remaining claims, the consolidated amended complaint pleads the following relevant facts. Although Defendants attach some basic information about the FlowGuard Gold pipes at issue to their motion to strike (ECF No. 54-1), they make no specific arguments based on that document. In addition, Defendants’ reply brief presents written discovery responses from Plaintiffs. (See ECF No. 58.) But presenting new evidence and arguments for the first time in reply is not proper, so the Court disregards those submissions and Defendants’ arguments based on them.
Plaintiffs Kevin and Janet Jones live in Arizona. (ECF No. 17, ¶ 10, PageID #183.) In 1999, they constructed a new home and installed FlowGuard Gold pipes. (ECF No. 17, ¶ 21, PageID #185.)
Twenty years later, in October 2019, the pipes leaked, eventually causing the ceiling of one of the bedrooms to cave in. (Id. , ¶ 22.) When they first discovered the leak, they turned off the water to their house and put a bucket under the leak. (Id. , ¶ 23.) They called a contractor to repair the leak, and the contractor told them the leaky pipe was brittle. (Id. ) Later, another leak occurred in the ceiling above the home's kitchen and front bathroom, damaging those areas of the home. (Id. , ¶ 24.) Due to the leaks and the pipes’ alleged brittleness, the Joneses replumbed their house, at a cost in excess of $11,000 apart from incidental hotel bills totaling more than $2,000. (Id. , ¶ 27, PageID #186.) The Jones's insurance only covered part of those claimed damages. (Id. , ¶ 25.)
Mrs. Jones contacted Charlotte Pipe to make a warranty claim. (Id. , ¶ 28.) She spoke with a company representative, but claims Charlotte Pipe never sent her the form required to process her claim. (Id. , ¶¶ 29–30.) The consolidated amended complaint includes photos of the Jones's allegedly defective FlowGuard Gold pipes. (Id. , ¶ 32, PageID #187–88.)
Plaintiff Douglas Cochrane lives in Massachusetts. (ECF No. 17, ¶ 11, PageID #183.) In 2008, he built his home with FlowGuard Gold pipes and fittings designed by Lubrizol and Charlotte Pipe. (Id. , ¶ 34, PageID #188.) He claims his FlowGuard Gold pipes first leaked in June 2019. (Id. , ¶ 35.) That leak flooded his basement, damaged his ceiling tiles, trim, carpet and furniture, and caused his insurance company to drop him. (Id. , ¶¶ 35–36.) Between August 2019 and May 2020, he claims further leaks damaged his house. (Id. , ¶ 37, PageID #189.)
He contacted Charlotte Pipe and initiated a warranty claim. (Id. , ¶ 38.) He sent Charlotte Pipe photos and a sample of the failed FlowGuard Gold fitting. (Id. ) Two months later, Charlotte Pipe sent him an email and report concluding that the pipe and fitting was not defectively manufactured and failed "due to environmental stress cracking caused by exposure on the exterior to incompatible plasticizers and nonionic surfactants[.]" (Id. , ¶ 39.) Accordingly, Charlotte Pipe rejected his claim. (Id. , ¶ 40.)
His house continues to experience leaks, and Mr. Cochrane believes his pipes will have to be replaced. (Id. , ¶ 41–42, PageID #189–90.) He claims he would not have purchased a house with FlowGuard Gold pipes and fittings had he known the pipes would fail. (Id. , ¶ 45, PageID #190.) The consolidated amended complaint includes photos of the allegedly defective FlowGuard Gold pipes and fittings from his house. (Id. , ¶ 46, PageID #191.)
On May 4, 2020, Mr. Cochrane's counsel sent a letter to Lubrizol and Charlotte Pipe, notifying them of alleged violations of Massachusetts laws and demanded relief for himself and a putative Massachusetts class against Charlotte Pipe. (Id. , ¶ 43, PageID #190.) According to the consolidated amended complaint, a month later, Lubrizol and Charlotte Pipe failed to offer any "fair and reasonable" relief. (Id. , ¶ 44.)
Plaintiff Donna Baker lives in Washington. (ECF No. 17, ¶ 12, PageID #183.) During construction of her home in 2004, FlowGuard Gold pipes and fittings designed and manufactured by Lubrizol, Charlotte Pipe, and Thompson Plastics were installed. (Id. , ¶ 48, PageID #192.) Pipes in her living room wall leaked in November 2018 and damaged the wall, requiring it to be cut open to replace the failed piping. (Id. , ¶ 49.) In July 2020, Ms. Baker discovered mold in her spare bedroom. (Id. , ¶ 50, PageID #192–93.) A mold remediation company discovered a leak in the bedroom wall and elsewhere, so Ms. Baker had the FlowGuard Gold pipes in the bedroom wall replaced. (Id. , PageID #193.) Ms. Baker's insurance company did not cover the damage leaks from the FlowGuard Gold pipes allegedly caused. (Id. , ¶ 51.)
After the bedroom leak, Ms. Baker initiated a warranty claim with Charlotte Pipe, complete with photos of the failed product. (Id. , ¶ 52.) Charlotte Pipe denied the claim, explaining that Thompson Plastics manufactured Ms. Baker's piping, not ...
To continue reading
Request your trial