Palmer v. Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc.
Decision Date | 20 December 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 20180450,20180450 |
Citation | 936 N.W.2d 552 |
Parties | Richard PALMER and Angela Palmer, Plaintiffs and Appellees v. GENTEK BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Lisa M. Six (argued) and Garth H. Sjue (on brief), Williston, ND, for plaintiffs and appellees.
Brian D. Schmidt (argued) and Scott K. Porsborg (on brief), Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Gentek Building Products, Inc. ("Gentek") appealed a judgment entered after a jury awarded Richard and Angela Palmer damages of $10,791, plus interest. Gentek also appealed an order awarding attorney fees of $80,379 to the Palmers, and taxation of costs and disbursements. We conclude the district court did not err in holding the Palmers were not bound by the federal district court’s final order and judgment approving a class action settlement in Eliason v. Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. , No. 1:10cv2093, 2013 WL 12284495 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2013) (" Eliason "). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in its award of attorney fees and in not ruling on Gentek’s objection to costs and disbursements. We affirm the judgment, but we reverse the order awarding attorney fees and taxation of costs and disbursements, and remand for further proceedings.
[¶2] In 2003, the Palmers purchased and installed "Driftwood" steel siding from Gentek on their home in Williston. Gentek provided a lifetime limited warranty for the siding. In September 2011, the paint began to peel on the siding installed on the south side of the home. In January 2012, the Palmers submitted a warranty claim to Gentek. On January 23, 2012, Gentek offered the Palmers the option of either a cash settlement or replacement with a substitute siding under the warranty, since Gentek had discontinued producing the type of siding originally installed. While the Palmers opted to have their siding replaced with a substitute, Gentek had difficulty finding a contractor willing to perform the warranty work due to the oil boom in the area.
[¶3] The Palmers were not alone in their claims of paint defects in Gentek’s siding, in that thousands of others also experienced delaminated paint and filed warranty claims with Gentek, resulting in a class action lawsuit being filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. See Eliason , No. 1:10cv2093, 2013 WL 12284495 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2013). In August 2013, the federal district court in Eliason entered a final order and judgment approving a class action settlement. Id.
[¶4] In October 2014, the Palmers commenced this action against Gentek, alleging Gentek breached their warranty by failing to replace the Palmers’ defective steel siding and seeking costs, disbursements, and attorney fees under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d). Gentek moved the district court for summary judgment before trial, asserting that the Eliason final order and judgment approving a class-action settlement barred the Palmers’ claim as a matter of law. The court denied Gentek’s initial summary judgment motion in July 2015 and denied its renewed motion in July 2017. The court essentially held the Palmers were not bound by the Eliason judgment because the federal court in Eliason did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the Palmers to make them parties. The court held that while the Palmers were known to Gentek, no evidence showed they had been given "individual notice" under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B)1 for reasonably identifiable class members in class actions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).
[¶5] The Palmers moved for partial summary judgment on liability, which the district court granted, and the case proceeded to trial on damages. In September 2018, the court held a two-day trial on the Palmers claim for damages. The jury subsequently entered a verdict in the Palmers’ favor and awarded $10,791 in damages plus six percent interest, accruing from February 20, 2012. The court awarded the Palmers $80,379 in attorney fees, in addition to their costs for procuring an appraisal expert and disbursements.
[¶6] Gentek argues that in denying their summary judgment motions, the district court erred in ruling the Palmers were not class members and their claim was not barred and in holding the court had jurisdiction over the dispute. Gentek argues the court lacked jurisdiction over the Palmers’ state court action because it was barred by the final order and judgment in Eliason .
[¶7] Rather than the district court's jurisdiction, however, the dispositive issue in this case is the extent to which the Palmers may collaterally attack the final class action judgment entered by the federal court in Eliason . Put another way, what is the scope of our review for the Palmers’ challenge on due process grounds to the binding effect of the federal district court’s final order and judgment in Eliason .
[¶8] In discussing collateral attack of a final judgment in a class action, one noted treatise explained:
6 Newberg on Class Actions § 18:37 (5th ed. June 2019 Update) (footnotes omitted).
[¶9] Generally, it is well established that "a party seeking to avoid the binding effect of a prior judgment is entitled to collaterally attack the judgment on the grounds that the rendering court had no personal jurisdiction over him or her at the time the judgment was rendered." Lamarque v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. , 927 A.2d 753, 760 (R.I. 2007) ; see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts , 472 U.S. 797, 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985) (); Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp. , 456 U.S. 461, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) (). The court in Lamarque further explained why collateral attacks on class action judgments present a "distinct problem from attacks on other types of judgments":
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Menard, Inc.
...method of calculating attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. See Palmer v. Gentek Bldg. Prod., Inc. , 2019 ND 306, ¶ 29, 936 N.W.2d 552 ; Fode v. Capital RV Ctr., Inc. , 1998 ND 65, ¶¶ 34-36, 575 N.W.2d 682 ; Duchscherer v. W.W. Wallwork, Inc. , 534 N.W.2d 13, 16 (N.D. 1995). ......
-
Big Pines, LLC v. Baker
...reasonable amount may be varied depending upon other considerations." Palmer v. Gentek Bldg. Prod., Inc. , 2019 ND 306, ¶ 24, 936 N.W.2d 552. Other important factors to consider when determining reasonable attorney's fees may be found in N.D.R.Prof. Cond. 1.5(a); Tillich v. Bruce , 2017 ND ......
-
Kotalik v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
...18. This court notes defendants correctly state the considerations for statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Palmer v. Gentek Building Prods., Inc., 936 N.W.2d 552, 559 (N.D. 2019) (quoting In re N.A., 879 N.W.2d 82, 84 (N.D. 2016) ); N.D. Cent. Code § 1-02-02 ("Words used in any statute are......
-
Rosenberg v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
...any second-guessing of those determinations.”) (internal citations omitted); see also, e.g., Palmer v. Gentek Building Prods., Inc., 936 N.W.2d 552, 557 (N.D. 2019); Lamarque v. Fairbanks Cap. Corp., 927 A.2d 753, 765 (R.I. 2007). In contrast, the Sixth and Second Circuits have followed the......