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 Corporation Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

January 8, 2015

IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
v.
ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION, Defendant. LLOYD M. DENSON, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, No. 1:13-md-2495-TWT

OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr., District Judge.

This is an 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. 93] Count IV and Count VII of the Plaintiffs Peggy and Lloyd Denson's Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 93] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs Peggy and Lloyd Denson are purchasers 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 Plaintiffs claim 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 Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, [5] asserting claims for: breach of the express warranty (Count I), breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Count II), negligent design (Count III), fraudulent concealment (Count IV), violation of Alabama's Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI). The Plaintiffs seek damages, litigation expenses, and equitable relief.[6] The Defendant moves to dismiss Count IV and the Plaintiffs' 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.[7] 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."[8] 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.[9] Generally, notice pleading is all that is required for a valid complaint.[10] Under notice pleading, the plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests.[11]

III. Discussion

A. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

The Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an injunction mandating that the Defendant:

1. "[N]otify [the Plaintiffs and class members]... of the defect, "[12]
2. "[R]eassess all prior warranty claims and... [bear] all costs of investigation, repair and/or replacement of the Shingles, "[13] and
3. "[I]nspect the roofs/Shingles of all [class members]... who have not filed warranty claims and to repair ...

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.