Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

December 2, 2014

IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL NO. 2495
v.
ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant. NOBLE L. BROOKS, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, No. 1:13-md-2495-TWT

OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a multi-district action arising out of the marketing and sale of allegedly defective roofing shingles. It is before the Court on the Defendant Atlas Roofing Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 67] Counts IV, V, and VII of the Plaintiff Noble L. Brooks, Jr.’s Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 67] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

The Plaintiff Noble L. Brooks, Jr. is a purchaser of the Atlas Chalet Shingles (“Shingles”), which are designed, manufactured, and sold by the Defendant Atlas Roofing Corporation (“Atlas”).[1] Atlas represented and continues to represent – in marketing material and on the Shingles packaging – that the Shingles meet applicable building codes and industry standards.[2] Atlas also provides a limited thirty-year warranty against manufacturing defects.[3]

The Plaintiff claims that the Shingles are defective due to a flaw in the manufacturing process. This process – which allegedly does not conform to applicable building codes and industry standards – “permits moisture to intrude into the Shingles, creating a gas bubble that expands when the Shingles are exposed to the sun resulting in cracking, blistering and premature deterioration of the Shingles.”[4] The Plaintiff filed suit, asserting claims for: breach of express warranty (Count I), breach of implied warranties (Count II), negligent design (Count III), fraudulent concealment (Count IV), unjust enrichment (Count V), and strict products liability (Count VI). The Plaintiff seeks damages, litigation expenses, and equitable relief.[5] The Defendant moves to dismiss Count IV, Count V, and the Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief.

II. Legal Standard

A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only where it appears that the facts alleged fail to state a “plausible” claim for relief.[6] A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, however, even if it is “improbable” that a plaintiff would be able to prove those facts; even if the possibility of recovery is extremely “remote and unlikely.”[7] In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.[8] Generally, notice pleading is all that is required for a valid complaint.[9] Under notice pleading, the plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests.[10]

III. Discussion

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

As a threshold matter, the Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because, based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, there is no minimal diversity. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, “federal courts now have original jurisdiction over class actions in which [1] the amount in controversy exceeds $5, 000, 000 and [2] there is minimal diversity (at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states).”[11] The minimal diversity requirement may be met when “only one member of the plaintiff class – named or unnamed – . . . [is] diverse from any one defendant.”[12]

Here, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are citizens of Mississippi.[13]However, the Plaintiff’s requested class is not limited to Mississippi citizens. The Plaintiff has defined the class to include “[a]ll persons and entities that own homes, residences, buildings, or other structures physically located in the State of Mississippi on which (a) Atlas Chalet Shingles were installed; or (b) were previously installed and have been replaced by the owners.”[14] Thus, to be a member of the class, the only requirement is that the structure containing the Chalet Shingles must be located in Mississippi. Although the Defendant is correct that the Plaintiff has not referenced a specific non-Mississippi citizen that would be a member of the class, the Court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”[15] Because the allegations in the Amended Complaint give rise to a plausible inference that there is a non-Mississippi citizen that owns a structure in Mississippi containing Chalet Shingles, the Court may not dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at this stage in the litigation.

B. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

The Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an injunction mandating ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.